FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Nazi party historical re write
Nazi party historical re write
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The banning of free trade unions. Close thread. " Erm.maybe you haven't thought this through? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"this is a swingers site and not a Nazi party political broadcast service " It's a discussion on the nazi party politics. On a political forum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just rearead the STILL OPEN thread on the Nazis here... https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1491798 There really was no need to start a new thread with that one still open. Go back an address the points in there. "Yes we went over the left wing policies. What we're the nazi parties social and economic right wing policies? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Come on then moreley, what’s left wing about banning independent trade unions? " The trade unions were free market unions. Are you coming from a place where banni g things is right wing? It seems so | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Come on then moreley, what’s left wing about banning independent trade unions? The trade unions were free market unions. Are you coming from a place where banni g things is right wing? It seems so " Banning trade unions *is* right wing. It’s frankly ludicrous to even attempt to argue otherwise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Come on then moreley, what’s left wing about banning independent trade unions? The trade unions were free market unions. Are you coming from a place where banni g things is right wing? It seems so Banning trade unions *is* right wing. It’s frankly ludicrous to even attempt to argue otherwise. " No it's not. Nationalising them under 1 banner is left wing. I think you need to read uo what happened. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just rearead the STILL OPEN thread on the Nazis here... https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1491798 There really was no need to start a new thread with that one still open. Go back an address the points in there.
Yes we went over the left wing policies.
What we're the nazi parties social and economic right wing policies?
"What’s the point? You don’t want a discussion. You failed to address any of the follow on points in the open thread. You just want to say your point then stick fingers in ears shouting “nah nah nah I’m right you are wrong” then go into other threads rewriting and misrepresenting what was actually said. When caught put you try the “oh that wasn’t what I meant” crap. Just one example was your assertion that seizing assets from “rich Jews” was a socialist wealth redistribution policy!!!! Multiple times I reminded you it was ALL Jews and was not an economic policy. It was social Darwinism to eradicate Jews from society. But no, you latched onto “rich” and saw it as class war ergo socialism! A totally pointless exercise! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just rearead the STILL OPEN thread on the Nazis here... https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1491798 There really was no need to start a new thread with that one still open. Go back an address the points in there.
Yes we went over the left wing policies.
What we're the nazi parties social and economic right wing policies?
What’s the point? You don’t want a discussion. You failed to address any of the follow on points in the open thread. You just want to say your point then stick fingers in ears shouting “nah nah nah I’m right you are wrong” then go into other threads rewriting and misrepresenting what was actually said.
When caught put you try the “oh that wasn’t what I meant” crap. Just one example was your assertion that seizing assets from “rich Jews” was a socialist wealth redistribution policy!!!! Multiple times I reminded you it was ALL Jews and was not an economic policy. It was social Darwinism to eradicate Jews from society. But no, you latched onto “rich” and saw it as class war ergo socialism!
A totally pointless exercise!"So then. None.. Bravo. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Come on then moreley, what’s left wing about banning independent trade unions? The trade unions were free market unions. Are you coming from a place where banni g things is right wing? It seems so Banning trade unions *is* right wing. It’s frankly ludicrous to even attempt to argue otherwise. No it's not. Nationalising them under 1 banner is left wing. I think you need to read uo what happened." I posted EXACTLY what happened in the OPEN THREAD, go back and read it. You are wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just rearead the STILL OPEN thread on the Nazis here... https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1491798 There really was no need to start a new thread with that one still open. Go back an address the points in there.
Yes we went over the left wing policies.
What we're the nazi parties social and economic right wing policies?
What’s the point? You don’t want a discussion. You failed to address any of the follow on points in the open thread. You just want to say your point then stick fingers in ears shouting “nah nah nah I’m right you are wrong” then go into other threads rewriting and misrepresenting what was actually said.
When caught put you try the “oh that wasn’t what I meant” crap. Just one example was your assertion that seizing assets from “rich Jews” was a socialist wealth redistribution policy!!!! Multiple times I reminded you it was ALL Jews and was not an economic policy. It was social Darwinism to eradicate Jews from society. But no, you latched onto “rich” and saw it as class war ergo socialism!
A totally pointless exercise!
So then. None..
Bravo.
"Discussing anything with you is like trying to play chess with a pigeon (I trust you know the analogy). Pointless waste of time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just rearead the STILL OPEN thread on the Nazis here... https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1491798 There really was no need to start a new thread with that one still open. Go back an address the points in there.
Yes we went over the left wing policies.
What we're the nazi parties social and economic right wing policies?
What’s the point? You don’t want a discussion. You failed to address any of the follow on points in the open thread. You just want to say your point then stick fingers in ears shouting “nah nah nah I’m right you are wrong” then go into other threads rewriting and misrepresenting what was actually said.
When caught put you try the “oh that wasn’t what I meant” crap. Just one example was your assertion that seizing assets from “rich Jews” was a socialist wealth redistribution policy!!!! Multiple times I reminded you it was ALL Jews and was not an economic policy. It was social Darwinism to eradicate Jews from society. But no, you latched onto “rich” and saw it as class war ergo socialism!
A totally pointless exercise!
So then. None..
Bravo.
Discussing anything with you is like trying to play chess with a pigeon (I trust you know the analogy). Pointless waste of time."It's not my fault you can't acknowledge when you mess soemthing up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Come on then moreley, what’s left wing about banning independent trade unions? The trade unions were free market unions. Are you coming from a place where banni g things is right wing? It seems so Banning trade unions *is* right wing. It’s frankly ludicrous to even attempt to argue otherwise. No it's not. Nationalising them under 1 banner is left wing. I think you need to read uo what happened." Removing collective bargaining, destroying legal organised opposition? Left wing? What makes you confident that you’re right and essentially every historian in the world is wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also told you I said it as a rich Jews as in all Jews were perceived to be rich. I sent you links with regards to rticles that cited how the nazi party portrayed this and the wealth of the state in their hand. Bit for some reason. You haped on about only rich Jews. Again you were corrected on it. But refused to acknowledge that correction. Thanks for admitting finally you jave no right wing policy's the nazis had." Nope go back in the thread where I quoted several times where you were focused on “rich Jews”. You backtracked after several reminders from me it was all Jews with “ah that wasn’t what I meant” but it is clear for everyone to read in that thread (and the earlier one) that you were trying to say it was a socialist wealth redistribution policy. It wasn’t. Nobody has to take my word for it, they can go back and read for themselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just rearead the STILL OPEN thread on the Nazis here... https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1491798 There really was no need to start a new thread with that one still open. Go back an address the points in there.
Yes we went over the left wing policies.
What we're the nazi parties social and economic right wing policies?
What’s the point? You don’t want a discussion. You failed to address any of the follow on points in the open thread. You just want to say your point then stick fingers in ears shouting “nah nah nah I’m right you are wrong” then go into other threads rewriting and misrepresenting what was actually said.
When caught put you try the “oh that wasn’t what I meant” crap. Just one example was your assertion that seizing assets from “rich Jews” was a socialist wealth redistribution policy!!!! Multiple times I reminded you it was ALL Jews and was not an economic policy. It was social Darwinism to eradicate Jews from society. But no, you latched onto “rich” and saw it as class war ergo socialism!
A totally pointless exercise!
So then. None..
Bravo.
Discussing anything with you is like trying to play chess with a pigeon (I trust you know the analogy). Pointless waste of time.
It's not my fault you can't acknowledge when you mess soemthing up.
"The irony in that post is simply delicious. Truly you lack any self awareness. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Come on then moreley, what’s left wing about banning independent trade unions? The trade unions were free market unions. Are you coming from a place where banni g things is right wing? It seems so Banning trade unions *is* right wing. It’s frankly ludicrous to even attempt to argue otherwise. No it's not. Nationalising them under 1 banner is left wing. I think you need to read uo what happened. Removing collective bargaining, destroying legal organised opposition? Left wing? What makes you confident that you’re right and essentially every historian in the world is wrong?" Getting rid of your competitors? We haven't ever seen left wing organisations do that before.... Oh wait... only every time they seize power. Most historians don't see the nazi party policies as right wing. If you did. You'd have to class chairman mao right wing, stalin, putin and many more as right ring. Far right was jaut a term for people seen as ultra nationalist. But this term would easily be applied to the ussr and Russia. Are you trying to tell us Russia has been right wing for 100 years? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also told you I said it as a rich Jews as in all Jews were perceived to be rich. I sent you links with regards to rticles that cited how the nazi party portrayed this and the wealth of the state in their hand. Bit for some reason. You haped on about only rich Jews. Again you were corrected on it. But refused to acknowledge that correction. Thanks for admitting finally you jave no right wing policy's the nazis had." Eugenics and forced sterilisation? Promotion of the aryan race? Oppression of Jews, travellers, trade unions, socialists, restriction of women ‘Children, Kitchen, Church’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Specifically? The ultra-nationalist policies and belief in the racial superiority of the Germanic people, specifically Aryan people. It's a pretty big policy to be fair." So are you saying that racism is a right wing goal? Do you believe that the left has no racists? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also told you I said it as a rich Jews as in all Jews were perceived to be rich. I sent you links with regards to rticles that cited how the nazi party portrayed this and the wealth of the state in their hand. Bit for some reason. You haped on about only rich Jews. Again you were corrected on it. But refused to acknowledge that correction. Thanks for admitting finally you jave no right wing policy's the nazis had. Nope go back in the thread where I quoted several times where you were focused on “rich Jews”. You backtracked after several reminders from me it was all Jews with “ah that wasn’t what I meant” but it is clear for everyone to read in that thread (and the earlier one) that you were trying to say it was a socialist wealth redistribution policy. It wasn’t. Nobody has to take my word for it, they can go back and read for themselves. " No this was the very first reply to you I am sorry but this is just fact. I said rich Jews You said all Jews. I said Hitler portrayed all Jews as rich Jews. You then had nothing else to say. It's actually documented on the thread. So you're now just denying fact and reality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also told you I said it as a rich Jews as in all Jews were perceived to be rich. I sent you links with regards to rticles that cited how the nazi party portrayed this and the wealth of the state in their hand. Bit for some reason. You haped on about only rich Jews. Again you were corrected on it. But refused to acknowledge that correction. Thanks for admitting finally you jave no right wing policy's the nazis had. Eugenics and forced sterilisation? Promotion of the aryan race? Oppression of Jews, travellers, trade unions, socialists, restriction of women ‘Children, Kitchen, Church’ " Would you say Sweden is right or left wing? Maybe Iceland? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s the point? You don’t want a discussion. You failed to address any of the follow on points in the open thread. You just want to say your point then stick fingers in ears shouting “nah nah nah I’m right you are wrong” then go into other threads rewriting and misrepresenting what was actually said." Pot, kettle - kettle, pot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Eugenics and forced sterilisation? Promotion of the aryan race?" Are those free-market (right wing) policies? Or are they just racist policies? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Eugenics and forced sterilisation? Promotion of the aryan race? Are those free-market (right wing) policies? Or are they just racist policies?" I think heard _irldn know they're backed into a corner. Because when you bring eugenics,sterilisation into it. The history of mao,Sweden,ussr suddenly says all those countries were right wing. Which doesn't stand up to scrutiny. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also told you I said it as a rich Jews as in all Jews were perceived to be rich. I sent you links with regards to rticles that cited how the nazi party portrayed this and the wealth of the state in their hand. Bit for some reason. You haped on about only rich Jews. Again you were corrected on it. But refused to acknowledge that correction. Thanks for admitting finally you jave no right wing policy's the nazis had. Nope go back in the thread where I quoted several times where you were focused on “rich Jews”. You backtracked after several reminders from me it was all Jews with “ah that wasn’t what I meant” but it is clear for everyone to read in that thread (and the earlier one) that you were trying to say it was a socialist wealth redistribution policy. It wasn’t. Nobody has to take my word for it, they can go back and read for themselves. No this was the very first reply to you I am sorry but this is just fact. I said rich Jews You said all Jews. I said Hitler portrayed all Jews as rich Jews. You then had nothing else to say. It's actually documented on the thread. So you're now just denying fact and reality. " Nope reread what we both wrote. YOU said repeatedly “RICH Jews” and I repeatedly challenged that with “ALL Jews” then eventually after many posts you try to wriggle out of what YOU said by trying to pretend you were representing what Hitler said. Poor, very very poor. You fucked up. Be a big bot and admit it. BTW have you ever read Mein Kampff? Ever read the collected speeches of Adolf Hitler? I have. I had to. Oh and your reply to Fun Fella re historians and what they believe...christ on a bike Morley! The VAST majority of historian believe and agree the Nazis and Hitler were right wing. Only a handful of historians have tried to be revisionist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s the point? You don’t want a discussion. You failed to address any of the follow on points in the open thread. You just want to say your point then stick fingers in ears shouting “nah nah nah I’m right you are wrong” then go into other threads rewriting and misrepresenting what was actually said. Pot, kettle - kettle, pot." On this topic, perhaps. On others no! Morely ALWAYS | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also told you I said it as a rich Jews as in all Jews were perceived to be rich. I sent you links with regards to rticles that cited how the nazi party portrayed this and the wealth of the state in their hand. Bit for some reason. You haped on about only rich Jews. Again you were corrected on it. But refused to acknowledge that correction. Thanks for admitting finally you jave no right wing policy's the nazis had. Nope go back in the thread where I quoted several times where you were focused on “rich Jews”. You backtracked after several reminders from me it was all Jews with “ah that wasn’t what I meant” but it is clear for everyone to read in that thread (and the earlier one) that you were trying to say it was a socialist wealth redistribution policy. It wasn’t. Nobody has to take my word for it, they can go back and read for themselves. No this was the very first reply to you I am sorry but this is just fact. I said rich Jews You said all Jews. I said Hitler portrayed all Jews as rich Jews. You then had nothing else to say. It's actually documented on the thread. So you're now just denying fact and reality. Nope reread what we both wrote. YOU said repeatedly “RICH Jews” and I repeatedly challenged that with “ALL Jews” then eventually after many posts you try to wriggle out of what YOU said by trying to pretend you were representing what Hitler said. Poor, very very poor. You fucked up. Be a big bot and admit it. BTW have you ever read Mein Kampff? Ever read the collected speeches of Adolf Hitler? I have. I had to. Oh and your reply to Fun Fella re historians and what they believe...christ on a bike Morley! The VAST majority of historian believe and agree the Nazis and Hitler were right wing. Only a handful of historians have tried to be revisionist. " I literally replied my copy past above "Nope I am sorry again. Hitler specifically blamed the rich Jews ( he generalised all Jews as rich, I was not talking about a specific class ofjew)" You are denying historical reality here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Eugenics and forced sterilisation? Promotion of the aryan race? Are those free-market (right wing) policies? Or are they just racist policies? I think heard _irldn know they're backed into a corner. Because when you bring eugenics,sterilisation into it. The history of mao,Sweden,ussr suddenly says all those countries were right wing. Which doesn't stand up to scrutiny." What corner am I backed into. Like really  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morley, do you know more about Hitler and the Nazis than Ian Kershaw? " Nope. Not historically. But possibly on political spectrums. But feel free to misquote something he said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The 2nd reply to you "No goalposts were changed. All property and assets were seized business handed out. The Jews were considered rich vs the working man...rich Jews. This was what Hitler used to described them. You seem ultra fixated on the term rich thinking it meant a class of jew. It meant all Jews were considered rich. I then gave you a link https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/fiscal-destruction-confiscatory-taxation-jewish-property-and-income-nazi-germany " Holy Cow. I know what Hitler said and wrote! That is not my point. YOU were trying to claim this as evidence of socialist wealth redistribution. You were wrong on that! If course Hitler described Jews as “rich” as it was emotive propaganda to turn ordinary Germans against the Jews (during a time of huge financial depression). I know that. You know that BUT YOU tried to make out that was evidence of them being socialist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morley, do you know more about Hitler and the Nazis than Ian Kershaw? Nope. Not historically. But possibly on political spectrums. But feel free to misquote something he said." Wow just wow...let that sink in for a minute...Morley truly believes he knows more about the politics of the Nazis than one of the world’s most pre-eminent historians. A published writer who have lectures. Remind us again what you do for a living Morley? Company accountant? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can give you a direct quote if you like. ‘Hitler was never a socialist’ That’s from one of the world’s great historians, who happens to specialise in Nazi Germany. " Well done on quoting so.ething from the full fact article you read. The terms is about nazi party and their policies. But. Well done about Hitler. Again This is like saying Karl marx wasn't a socialist He certainly didn't live the life of one. But he espoused the beliefs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So then when I said rich Jews and explained about how Hitler espoused all Jews were rich. And proved that. You still floundered on....for no reason about all Jews." Nope again. This is starting to get so embarrassing for you. Did you or did you not claim seizing the assets of rich jews was evidence of a socialist/left wing economic policy? Yes or No! Careful now because we can cut n paste your first and subsequent posts up to the point you backtracked and tried to say you were saying what Hitler said! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morley, do you know more about Hitler and the Nazis than Ian Kershaw? Nope. Not historically. But possibly on political spectrums. But feel free to misquote something he said. Wow just wow...let that sink in for a minute...Morley truly believes he knows more about the politics of the Nazis than one of the world’s most pre-eminent historians. A published writer who have lectures. Remind us again what you do for a living Morley? Company accountant?" You seem to be mistaking a history vs politics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So then when I said rich Jews and explained about how Hitler espoused all Jews were rich. And proved that. You still floundered on....for no reason about all Jews. Nope again. This is starting to get so embarrassing for you. Did you or did you not claim seizing the assets of rich jews was evidence of a socialist/left wing economic policy? Yes or No! Careful now because we can cut n paste your first and subsequent posts up to the point you backtracked and tried to say you were saying what Hitler said!" Seizing assets and giving them to the state to dish out is a left wing policy. That's marxism | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can give you a direct quote if you like. ‘Hitler was never a socialist’ That’s from one of the world’s great historians, who happens to specialise in Nazi Germany. Well done on quoting so.ething from the full fact article you read. The terms is about nazi party and their policies. But. Well done about Hitler. Again This is like saying Karl marx wasn't a socialist He certainly didn't live the life of one. But he espoused the beliefs." Morley, you’re wrong. You’ve been roving wrong time and again. Every historian worth his salt, indeed anyone who has studied history beyond GCSE knows you’re wrong. The ‘Nazis were socialist’ argument comes purely from a lunatic fringe on the right who want to discredit socialists by association with Hitler. It’s infantile and holds up to no scrutiny whatsoever. It’s crank stuff designed to fool the ignorant. I guess it worked. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So then when I said rich Jews and explained about how Hitler espoused all Jews were rich. And proved that. You still floundered on....for no reason about all Jews. Nope again. This is starting to get so embarrassing for you. Did you or did you not claim seizing the assets of rich jews was evidence of a socialist/left wing economic policy? Yes or No! Careful now because we can cut n paste your first and subsequent posts up to the point you backtracked and tried to say you were saying what Hitler said!" Because you keep telling people to go read the original thread I did just that.... Morley mentioned rich Jews... You replied with all Jews... Morley then replied Hitler deemed all Jews rich.... Not after being 'reminded several times', it was instantly. You can't just come and repeat things over and over to try score points, something which you often claim Morley does. It most certainly is a case of pot, kettle here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So then when I said rich Jews and explained about how Hitler espoused all Jews were rich. And proved that. You still floundered on....for no reason about all Jews. Nope again. This is starting to get so embarrassing for you. Did you or did you not claim seizing the assets of rich jews was evidence of a socialist/left wing economic policy? Yes or No! Careful now because we can cut n paste your first and subsequent posts up to the point you backtracked and tried to say you were saying what Hitler said! Because you keep telling people to go read the original thread I did just that.... Morley mentioned rich Jews... You replied with all Jews... Morley then replied Hitler deemed all Jews rich.... Not after being 'reminded several times', it was instantly. You can't just come and repeat things over and over to try score points, something which you often claim Morley does. It most certainly is a case of pot, kettle here. " Thank you. I thought me re posting what was said I the other thread would cut it. Clearly not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can give you a direct quote if you like. ‘Hitler was never a socialist’ That’s from one of the world’s great historians, who happens to specialise in Nazi Germany. Well done on quoting so.ething from the full fact article you read. The terms is about nazi party and their policies. But. Well done about Hitler. Again This is like saying Karl marx wasn't a socialist He certainly didn't live the life of one. But he espoused the beliefs. Morley, you’re wrong. You’ve been roving wrong time and again. Every historian worth his salt, indeed anyone who has studied history beyond GCSE knows you’re wrong. The ‘Nazis were socialist’ argument comes purely from a lunatic fringe on the right who want to discredit socialists by association with Hitler. It’s infantile and holds up to no scrutiny whatsoever. It’s crank stuff designed to fool the ignorant. I guess it worked. " And yet...here we are 40 posts in between you and _irldn. And still not a right win policy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So then when I said rich Jews and explained about how Hitler espoused all Jews were rich. And proved that. You still floundered on....for no reason about all Jews. Nope again. This is starting to get so embarrassing for you. Did you or did you not claim seizing the assets of rich jews was evidence of a socialist/left wing economic policy? Yes or No! Careful now because we can cut n paste your first and subsequent posts up to the point you backtracked and tried to say you were saying what Hitler said! Because you keep telling people to go read the original thread I did just that.... Morley mentioned rich Jews... You replied with all Jews... Morley then replied Hitler deemed all Jews rich.... Not after being 'reminded several times', it was instantly. You can't just come and repeat things over and over to try score points, something which you often claim Morley does. It most certainly is a case of pot, kettle here. " You are right, it started in the post on political spectrum that then kicked into the Nazi thread. If you had kept reading you would have come to this... “No. I was saying Jews were seen as the rich. Don't tell me what i was and was bot typing." You must be having a bad memory day Morley. On other thread your first reference to Jews and/or seizure of houses was... "They placed emphasis on taking Jewish rich property and taking into the government hands and ordinary workers hands. Doesn't sound right wing to me..." Followed shortly after by... ""Seizing the means of housing " or rich peoples houses and giving to the german worker doesn't exactly scream right wing politics. Instead verybmuch modern left wing. Isn't it what corbyn wanted to do?" And... "They built their entire campaign around the rich specifically the Jews." And I said... "LOLZ You proved my point without even realising it! 1. It wasn’t only rich Jewish property. It was ALL Jewish property." You came back with... "Seizing houses from the rich Jews was left wing." And so on! But no, you never said “rich Jews” and didn’t actually mean “rich Jews” you meant something else! Of course you did. You weren’t at all using the word “rich” to in any way imply this was a socialist policy of wealth redistribution! Credibility check needed me thinks!” So he didn’t come straight back with a clarification. He posted multiple times in the first thread and was challenged and it was only in the next thread where he tried to claim he meant something else. Morley’s entire argument is based on economic policies in isolation and without context. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So then when I said rich Jews and explained about how Hitler espoused all Jews were rich. And proved that. You still floundered on....for no reason about all Jews. Nope again. This is starting to get so embarrassing for you. Did you or did you not claim seizing the assets of rich jews was evidence of a socialist/left wing economic policy? Yes or No! Careful now because we can cut n paste your first and subsequent posts up to the point you backtracked and tried to say you were saying what Hitler said! Because you keep telling people to go read the original thread I did just that.... Morley mentioned rich Jews... You replied with all Jews... Morley then replied Hitler deemed all Jews rich.... Not after being 'reminded several times', it was instantly. You can't just come and repeat things over and over to try score points, something which you often claim Morley does. It most certainly is a case of pot, kettle here. You are right, it started in the post on political spectrum that then kicked into the Nazi thread. If you had kept reading you would have come to this... “No. I was saying Jews were seen as the rich. Don't tell me what i was and was bot typing." You must be having a bad memory day Morley. On other thread your first reference to Jews and/or seizure of houses was... "They placed emphasis on taking Jewish rich property and taking into the government hands and ordinary workers hands. Doesn't sound right wing to me..." Followed shortly after by... ""Seizing the means of housing " or rich peoples houses and giving to the german worker doesn't exactly scream right wing politics. Instead verybmuch modern left wing. Isn't it what corbyn wanted to do?" And... "They built their entire campaign around the rich specifically the Jews." And I said... "LOLZ You proved my point without even realising it! 1. It wasn’t only rich Jewish property. It was ALL Jewish property." You came back with... "Seizing houses from the rich Jews was left wing." And so on! But no, you never said “rich Jews” and didn’t actually mean “rich Jews” you meant something else! Of course you did. You weren’t at all using the word “rich” to in any way imply this was a socialist policy of wealth redistribution! Credibility check needed me thinks!” So he didn’t come straight back with a clarification. He posted multiple times in the first thread and was challenged and it was only in the next thread where he tried to claim he meant something else. Morley’s entire argument is based on economic policies in isolation and without context. " You have literally just proven my point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can give you a direct quote if you like. ‘Hitler was never a socialist’ That’s from one of the world’s great historians, who happens to specialise in Nazi Germany. Well done on quoting so.ething from the full fact article you read. The terms is about nazi party and their policies. But. Well done about Hitler. Again This is like saying Karl marx wasn't a socialist He certainly didn't live the life of one. But he espoused the beliefs. Morley, you’re wrong. You’ve been roving wrong time and again. Every historian worth his salt, indeed anyone who has studied history beyond GCSE knows you’re wrong. The ‘Nazis were socialist’ argument comes purely from a lunatic fringe on the right who want to discredit socialists by association with Hitler. It’s infantile and holds up to no scrutiny whatsoever. It’s crank stuff designed to fool the ignorant. I guess it worked. " By the same token you would try and defend Hitler and the nazis with Marxism and communism lenin. Can not be left wing because engels would subsidise marx with £50 a month to live $7500 today. And engelse family owned a a textile factory. Marxism by your logic isnt left wing. Because marx lived the life of a Well off person. This is ludicrous. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So then when I said rich Jews and explained about how Hitler espoused all Jews were rich. And proved that. You still floundered on....for no reason about all Jews. Nope again. This is starting to get so embarrassing for you. Did you or did you not claim seizing the assets of rich jews was evidence of a socialist/left wing economic policy? Yes or No! Careful now because we can cut n paste your first and subsequent posts up to the point you backtracked and tried to say you were saying what Hitler said! Because you keep telling people to go read the original thread I did just that.... Morley mentioned rich Jews... You replied with all Jews... Morley then replied Hitler deemed all Jews rich.... Not after being 'reminded several times', it was instantly. You can't just come and repeat things over and over to try score points, something which you often claim Morley does. It most certainly is a case of pot, kettle here. You are right, it started in the post on political spectrum that then kicked into the Nazi thread. If you had kept reading you would have come to this... “No. I was saying Jews were seen as the rich. Don't tell me what i was and was bot typing." You must be having a bad memory day Morley. On other thread your first reference to Jews and/or seizure of houses was... "They placed emphasis on taking Jewish rich property and taking into the government hands and ordinary workers hands. Doesn't sound right wing to me..." Followed shortly after by... ""Seizing the means of housing " or rich peoples houses and giving to the german worker doesn't exactly scream right wing politics. Instead verybmuch modern left wing. Isn't it what corbyn wanted to do?" And... "They built their entire campaign around the rich specifically the Jews." And I said... "LOLZ You proved my point without even realising it! 1. It wasn’t only rich Jewish property. It was ALL Jewish property." You came back with... "Seizing houses from the rich Jews was left wing." And so on! But no, you never said “rich Jews” and didn’t actually mean “rich Jews” you meant something else! Of course you did. You weren’t at all using the word “rich” to in any way imply this was a socialist policy of wealth redistribution! Credibility check needed me thinks!” So he didn’t come straight back with a clarification. He posted multiple times in the first thread and was challenged and it was only in the next thread where he tried to claim he meant something else. Morley’s entire argument is based on economic policies in isolation and without context. " I went to the thread you linked. He may have said rich multiple times in one post but after you corrected him, he acknowledged in the very next post. Come on, your here crying about people misrepresenting yet you're doing it yourself. You were the one who told people to go look, I did. I find he doesn't need reminding multiple times which was your claim. As you say, it's there for all to see, should they wish. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So then when I said rich Jews and explained about how Hitler espoused all Jews were rich. And proved that. You still floundered on....for no reason about all Jews. Nope again. This is starting to get so embarrassing for you. Did you or did you not claim seizing the assets of rich jews was evidence of a socialist/left wing economic policy? Yes or No! Careful now because we can cut n paste your first and subsequent posts up to the point you backtracked and tried to say you were saying what Hitler said! Because you keep telling people to go read the original thread I did just that.... Morley mentioned rich Jews... You replied with all Jews... Morley then replied Hitler deemed all Jews rich.... Not after being 'reminded several times', it was instantly. You can't just come and repeat things over and over to try score points, something which you often claim Morley does. It most certainly is a case of pot, kettle here. You are right, it started in the post on political spectrum that then kicked into the Nazi thread. If you had kept reading you would have come to this... “No. I was saying Jews were seen as the rich. Don't tell me what i was and was bot typing." You must be having a bad memory day Morley. On other thread your first reference to Jews and/or seizure of houses was... "They placed emphasis on taking Jewish rich property and taking into the government hands and ordinary workers hands. Doesn't sound right wing to me..." Followed shortly after by... ""Seizing the means of housing " or rich peoples houses and giving to the german worker doesn't exactly scream right wing politics. Instead verybmuch modern left wing. Isn't it what corbyn wanted to do?" And... "They built their entire campaign around the rich specifically the Jews." And I said... "LOLZ You proved my point without even realising it! 1. It wasn’t only rich Jewish property. It was ALL Jewish property." You came back with... "Seizing houses from the rich Jews was left wing." And so on! But no, you never said “rich Jews” and didn’t actually mean “rich Jews” you meant something else! Of course you did. You weren’t at all using the word “rich” to in any way imply this was a socialist policy of wealth redistribution! Credibility check needed me thinks!” So he didn’t come straight back with a clarification. He posted multiple times in the first thread and was challenged and it was only in the next thread where he tried to claim he meant something else. Morley’s entire argument is based on economic policies in isolation and without context. I went to the thread you linked. He may have said rich multiple times in one post but after you corrected him, he acknowledged in the very next post. Come on, your here crying about people misrepresenting yet you're doing it yourself. You were the one who told people to go look, I did. I find he doesn't need reminding multiple times which was your claim. As you say, it's there for all to see, should they wish. " It was my mistake. I thought any one with half an Incling on German history when diacussing it would have known how the nazis portrayed the Jews and I wouldn't have needed to explain it or link to how they were portrayed. Sadly I was wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can give you a direct quote if you like. ‘Hitler was never a socialist’ That’s from one of the world’s great historians, who happens to specialise in Nazi Germany. Well done on quoting so.ething from the full fact article you read. The terms is about nazi party and their policies. But. Well done about Hitler. Again This is like saying Karl marx wasn't a socialist He certainly didn't live the life of one. But he espoused the beliefs. Morley, you’re wrong. You’ve been roving wrong time and again. Every historian worth his salt, indeed anyone who has studied history beyond GCSE knows you’re wrong. The ‘Nazis were socialist’ argument comes purely from a lunatic fringe on the right who want to discredit socialists by association with Hitler. It’s infantile and holds up to no scrutiny whatsoever. It’s crank stuff designed to fool the ignorant. I guess it worked. And yet...here we are 40 posts in between you and _irldn. And still not a right win policy." I gave you a right wing policy which you claimed wasn’t right wing. I hate to break it to you, but that’s not how things work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can give you a direct quote if you like. ‘Hitler was never a socialist’ That’s from one of the world’s great historians, who happens to specialise in Nazi Germany. Well done on quoting so.ething from the full fact article you read. The terms is about nazi party and their policies. But. Well done about Hitler. Again This is like saying Karl marx wasn't a socialist He certainly didn't live the life of one. But he espoused the beliefs. Morley, you’re wrong. You’ve been roving wrong time and again. Every historian worth his salt, indeed anyone who has studied history beyond GCSE knows you’re wrong. The ‘Nazis were socialist’ argument comes purely from a lunatic fringe on the right who want to discredit socialists by association with Hitler. It’s infantile and holds up to no scrutiny whatsoever. It’s crank stuff designed to fool the ignorant. I guess it worked. And yet...here we are 40 posts in between you and _irldn. And still not a right win policy. I gave you a right wing policy which you claimed wasn’t right wing. I hate to break it to you, but that’s not how things work. " You claimed all racism, anti semitic, eugenics was right wing. I then queried this about Sweden and Iceland. I asked if you saw them as left or right wing. You never answered You know you're in a corner. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also told you I said it as a rich Jews as in all Jews were perceived to be rich. I sent you links with regards to rticles that cited how the nazi party portrayed this and the wealth of the state in their hand. Bit for some reason. You haped on about only rich Jews. Again you were corrected on it. But refused to acknowledge that correction. Thanks for admitting finally you jave no right wing policy's the nazis had. Eugenics and forced sterilisation? Promotion of the aryan race? Oppression of Jews, travellers, trade unions, socialists, restriction of women ‘Children, Kitchen, Church’ Would you say Sweden is right or left wing? Maybe Iceland? " See here funfella. No answer Feel free to answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can give you a direct quote if you like. ‘Hitler was never a socialist’ That’s from one of the world’s great historians, who happens to specialise in Nazi Germany. Well done on quoting so.ething from the full fact article you read. The terms is about nazi party and their policies. But. Well done about Hitler. Again This is like saying Karl marx wasn't a socialist He certainly didn't live the life of one. But he espoused the beliefs. Morley, you’re wrong. You’ve been roving wrong time and again. Every historian worth his salt, indeed anyone who has studied history beyond GCSE knows you’re wrong. The ‘Nazis were socialist’ argument comes purely from a lunatic fringe on the right who want to discredit socialists by association with Hitler. It’s infantile and holds up to no scrutiny whatsoever. It’s crank stuff designed to fool the ignorant. I guess it worked. And yet...here we are 40 posts in between you and _irldn. And still not a right win policy. I gave you a right wing policy which you claimed wasn’t right wing. I hate to break it to you, but that’s not how things work. You claimed all racism, anti semitic, eugenics was right wing. I then queried this about Sweden and Iceland. I asked if you saw them as left or right wing. You never answered You know you're in a corner." I certainly never claimed all racism was right wing, you just made that up - but it’s certainly more prevalent on the right. Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So then when I said rich Jews and explained about how Hitler espoused all Jews were rich. And proved that. You still floundered on....for no reason about all Jews. Nope again. This is starting to get so embarrassing for you. Did you or did you not claim seizing the assets of rich jews was evidence of a socialist/left wing economic policy? Yes or No! Careful now because we can cut n paste your first and subsequent posts up to the point you backtracked and tried to say you were saying what Hitler said! Because you keep telling people to go read the original thread I did just that.... Morley mentioned rich Jews... You replied with all Jews... Morley then replied Hitler deemed all Jews rich.... Not after being 'reminded several times', it was instantly. You can't just come and repeat things over and over to try score points, something which you often claim Morley does. It most certainly is a case of pot, kettle here. You are right, it started in the post on political spectrum that then kicked into the Nazi thread. If you had kept reading you would have come to this... “No. I was saying Jews were seen as the rich. Don't tell me what i was and was bot typing." You must be having a bad memory day Morley. On other thread your first reference to Jews and/or seizure of houses was... "They placed emphasis on taking Jewish rich property and taking into the government hands and ordinary workers hands. Doesn't sound right wing to me..." Followed shortly after by... ""Seizing the means of housing " or rich peoples houses and giving to the german worker doesn't exactly scream right wing politics. Instead verybmuch modern left wing. Isn't it what corbyn wanted to do?" And... "They built their entire campaign around the rich specifically the Jews." And I said... "LOLZ You proved my point without even realising it! 1. It wasn’t only rich Jewish property. It was ALL Jewish property." You came back with... "Seizing houses from the rich Jews was left wing." And so on! But no, you never said “rich Jews” and didn’t actually mean “rich Jews” you meant something else! Of course you did. You weren’t at all using the word “rich” to in any way imply this was a socialist policy of wealth redistribution! Credibility check needed me thinks!” So he didn’t come straight back with a clarification. He posted multiple times in the first thread and was challenged and it was only in the next thread where he tried to claim he meant something else. Morley’s entire argument is based on economic policies in isolation and without context. I went to the thread you linked. He may have said rich multiple times in one post but after you corrected him, he acknowledged in the very next post. Come on, your here crying about people misrepresenting yet you're doing it yourself. You were the one who told people to go look, I did. I find he doesn't need reminding multiple times which was your claim. As you say, it's there for all to see, should they wish. " Simply isn’t true. He made reference to rich jews in several separate posts in that thread. Each quote above was a separate post. He was challenged several times before changing his story. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So then when I said rich Jews and explained about how Hitler espoused all Jews were rich. And proved that. You still floundered on....for no reason about all Jews. Nope again. This is starting to get so embarrassing for you. Did you or did you not claim seizing the assets of rich jews was evidence of a socialist/left wing economic policy? Yes or No! Careful now because we can cut n paste your first and subsequent posts up to the point you backtracked and tried to say you were saying what Hitler said! Because you keep telling people to go read the original thread I did just that.... Morley mentioned rich Jews... You replied with all Jews... Morley then replied Hitler deemed all Jews rich.... Not after being 'reminded several times', it was instantly. You can't just come and repeat things over and over to try score points, something which you often claim Morley does. It most certainly is a case of pot, kettle here. You are right, it started in the post on political spectrum that then kicked into the Nazi thread. If you had kept reading you would have come to this... “No. I was saying Jews were seen as the rich. Don't tell me what i was and was bot typing." You must be having a bad memory day Morley. On other thread your first reference to Jews and/or seizure of houses was... "They placed emphasis on taking Jewish rich property and taking into the government hands and ordinary workers hands. Doesn't sound right wing to me..." Followed shortly after by... ""Seizing the means of housing " or rich peoples houses and giving to the german worker doesn't exactly scream right wing politics. Instead verybmuch modern left wing. Isn't it what corbyn wanted to do?" And... "They built their entire campaign around the rich specifically the Jews." And I said... "LOLZ You proved my point without even realising it! 1. It wasn’t only rich Jewish property. It was ALL Jewish property." You came back with... "Seizing houses from the rich Jews was left wing." And so on! But no, you never said “rich Jews” and didn’t actually mean “rich Jews” you meant something else! Of course you did. You weren’t at all using the word “rich” to in any way imply this was a socialist policy of wealth redistribution! Credibility check needed me thinks!” So he didn’t come straight back with a clarification. He posted multiple times in the first thread and was challenged and it was only in the next thread where he tried to claim he meant something else. Morley’s entire argument is based on economic policies in isolation and without context. I went to the thread you linked. He may have said rich multiple times in one post but after you corrected him, he acknowledged in the very next post. Come on, your here crying about people misrepresenting yet you're doing it yourself. You were the one who told people to go look, I did. I find he doesn't need reminding multiple times which was your claim. As you say, it's there for all to see, should they wish. Simply isn’t true. He made reference to rich jews in several separate posts in that thread. Each quote above was a separate post. He was challenged several times before changing his story." Of course it's true. I read what you told me to read. As you said, there for all to see. He may well have gone on to say rich Jews in further posts, I didn't bother reading after I found him say Hitler seen all Jews as rich. That's the important point you were trying to say didn't happen until after he was 'reminded multiple times' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So then when I said rich Jews and explained about how Hitler espoused all Jews were rich. And proved that. You still floundered on....for no reason about all Jews. Nope again. This is starting to get so embarrassing for you. Did you or did you not claim seizing the assets of rich jews was evidence of a socialist/left wing economic policy? Yes or No! Careful now because we can cut n paste your first and subsequent posts up to the point you backtracked and tried to say you were saying what Hitler said! Because you keep telling people to go read the original thread I did just that.... Morley mentioned rich Jews... You replied with all Jews... Morley then replied Hitler deemed all Jews rich.... Not after being 'reminded several times', it was instantly. You can't just come and repeat things over and over to try score points, something which you often claim Morley does. It most certainly is a case of pot, kettle here. You are right, it started in the post on political spectrum that then kicked into the Nazi thread. If you had kept reading you would have come to this... “No. I was saying Jews were seen as the rich. Don't tell me what i was and was bot typing." You must be having a bad memory day Morley. On other thread your first reference to Jews and/or seizure of houses was... "They placed emphasis on taking Jewish rich property and taking into the government hands and ordinary workers hands. Doesn't sound right wing to me..." Followed shortly after by... ""Seizing the means of housing " or rich peoples houses and giving to the german worker doesn't exactly scream right wing politics. Instead verybmuch modern left wing. Isn't it what corbyn wanted to do?" And... "They built their entire campaign around the rich specifically the Jews." And I said... "LOLZ You proved my point without even realising it! 1. It wasn’t only rich Jewish property. It was ALL Jewish property." You came back with... "Seizing houses from the rich Jews was left wing." And so on! But no, you never said “rich Jews” and didn’t actually mean “rich Jews” you meant something else! Of course you did. You weren’t at all using the word “rich” to in any way imply this was a socialist policy of wealth redistribution! Credibility check needed me thinks!” So he didn’t come straight back with a clarification. He posted multiple times in the first thread and was challenged and it was only in the next thread where he tried to claim he meant something else. Morley’s entire argument is based on economic policies in isolation and without context. You have literally just proven my point." I literally haven’t. If the Nazis had seized the property of all people who were rich and redistributed that wealth to the ordinary working class Germans, THAT would be a Socialist (well Communist actually) policy. But they didn’t. They seized the property of ALL Jews regardless of their wealth. That is not a Socialist policy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So then when I said rich Jews and explained about how Hitler espoused all Jews were rich. And proved that. You still floundered on....for no reason about all Jews. Nope again. This is starting to get so embarrassing for you. Did you or did you not claim seizing the assets of rich jews was evidence of a socialist/left wing economic policy? Yes or No! Careful now because we can cut n paste your first and subsequent posts up to the point you backtracked and tried to say you were saying what Hitler said! Because you keep telling people to go read the original thread I did just that.... Morley mentioned rich Jews... You replied with all Jews... Morley then replied Hitler deemed all Jews rich.... Not after being 'reminded several times', it was instantly. You can't just come and repeat things over and over to try score points, something which you often claim Morley does. It most certainly is a case of pot, kettle here. You are right, it started in the post on political spectrum that then kicked into the Nazi thread. If you had kept reading you would have come to this... “No. I was saying Jews were seen as the rich. Don't tell me what i was and was bot typing." You must be having a bad memory day Morley. On other thread your first reference to Jews and/or seizure of houses was... "They placed emphasis on taking Jewish rich property and taking into the government hands and ordinary workers hands. Doesn't sound right wing to me..." Followed shortly after by... ""Seizing the means of housing " or rich peoples houses and giving to the german worker doesn't exactly scream right wing politics. Instead verybmuch modern left wing. Isn't it what corbyn wanted to do?" And... "They built their entire campaign around the rich specifically the Jews." And I said... "LOLZ You proved my point without even realising it! 1. It wasn’t only rich Jewish property. It was ALL Jewish property." You came back with... "Seizing houses from the rich Jews was left wing." And so on! But no, you never said “rich Jews” and didn’t actually mean “rich Jews” you meant something else! Of course you did. You weren’t at all using the word “rich” to in any way imply this was a socialist policy of wealth redistribution! Credibility check needed me thinks!” So he didn’t come straight back with a clarification. He posted multiple times in the first thread and was challenged and it was only in the next thread where he tried to claim he meant something else. Morley’s entire argument is based on economic policies in isolation and without context. I went to the thread you linked. He may have said rich multiple times in one post but after you corrected him, he acknowledged in the very next post. Come on, your here crying about people misrepresenting yet you're doing it yourself. You were the one who told people to go look, I did. I find he doesn't need reminding multiple times which was your claim. As you say, it's there for all to see, should they wish. Simply isn’t true. He made reference to rich jews in several separate posts in that thread. Each quote above was a separate post. He was challenged several times before changing his story. Of course it's true. I read what you told me to read. As you said, there for all to see. He may well have gone on to say rich Jews in further posts, I didn't bother reading after I found him say Hitler seen all Jews as rich. That's the important point you were trying to say didn't happen until after he was 'reminded multiple times'" Morley was clearly trying to claim it was a socialist wealth redistribution policy. It wasn’t. He kept referring to RICH to underscore that point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Feisty are you now trying to argue the Nazis were socialist? In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated his desire to "make war upon the Marxist principle that all men are equal". He believed that "the notion of equality was a sin against nature." Nazism upheld the "natural inequality of men," including inequality between races and also within each race. The National Socialist state aimed to advance those individuals with special talents or intelligence, so they could rule over the masses." Have I said anything about left or right? For me the Nazi were racist, that's neither left or right. I don't know enough about any of their policies to decide which way side they were. Although, 'ruling over the masses' could be left or right. As I asked in the last thread, is this a case of so far right, almost left? Or vice versa? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Feisty are you now trying to argue the Nazis were socialist? In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated his desire to "make war upon the Marxist principle that all men are equal". He believed that "the notion of equality was a sin against nature." Nazism upheld the "natural inequality of men," including inequality between races and also within each race. The National Socialist state aimed to advance those individuals with special talents or intelligence, so they could rule over the masses. Have I said anything about left or right? For me the Nazi were racist, that's neither left or right. I don't know enough about any of their policies to decide which way side they were. Although, 'ruling over the masses' could be left or right. As I asked in the last thread, is this a case of so far right, almost left? Or vice versa?" And I have just revisited the first thread. Morley’s intentions were quite clear by stating RICH Jews more than once. He was trying to make the link to a Socialist policy but failed. Backtracked when called out with ALL Jews but then subsequently continued to reference RICH Jews despite having been pulled up on it. That demonstrates that the point he was making was to link it to a Socialist policy. It wasn’t, otherwise it wouldn’t have been restricted to Jews it would have been all rich people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Feisty are you now trying to argue the Nazis were socialist? In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated his desire to "make war upon the Marxist principle that all men are equal". He believed that "the notion of equality was a sin against nature." Nazism upheld the "natural inequality of men," including inequality between races and also within each race. The National Socialist state aimed to advance those individuals with special talents or intelligence, so they could rule over the masses. Have I said anything about left or right? For me the Nazi were racist, that's neither left or right. I don't know enough about any of their policies to decide which way side they were. Although, 'ruling over the masses' could be left or right. As I asked in the last thread, is this a case of so far right, almost left? Or vice versa? And I have just revisited the first thread. Morley’s intentions were quite clear by stating RICH Jews more than once. He was trying to make the link to a Socialist policy but failed. Backtracked when called out with ALL Jews but then subsequently continued to reference RICH Jews despite having been pulled up on it. That demonstrates that the point he was making was to link it to a Socialist policy. It wasn’t, otherwise it wouldn’t have been restricted to Jews it would have been all rich people." What does that have to do with the question you asked and my answer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So then when I said rich Jews and explained about how Hitler espoused all Jews were rich. And proved that. You still floundered on....for no reason about all Jews. Nope again. This is starting to get so embarrassing for you. Did you or did you not claim seizing the assets of rich jews was evidence of a socialist/left wing economic policy? Yes or No! Careful now because we can cut n paste your first and subsequent posts up to the point you backtracked and tried to say you were saying what Hitler said! Because you keep telling people to go read the original thread I did just that.... Morley mentioned rich Jews... You replied with all Jews... Morley then replied Hitler deemed all Jews rich.... Not after being 'reminded several times', it was instantly. You can't just come and repeat things over and over to try score points, something which you often claim Morley does. It most certainly is a case of pot, kettle here. You are right, it started in the post on political spectrum that then kicked into the Nazi thread. If you had kept reading you would have come to this... “No. I was saying Jews were seen as the rich. Don't tell me what i was and was bot typing." You must be having a bad memory day Morley. On other thread your first reference to Jews and/or seizure of houses was... "They placed emphasis on taking Jewish rich property and taking into the government hands and ordinary workers hands. Doesn't sound right wing to me..." Followed shortly after by... ""Seizing the means of housing " or rich peoples houses and giving to the german worker doesn't exactly scream right wing politics. Instead verybmuch modern left wing. Isn't it what corbyn wanted to do?" And... "They built their entire campaign around the rich specifically the Jews." And I said... "LOLZ You proved my point without even realising it! 1. It wasn’t only rich Jewish property. It was ALL Jewish property." You came back with... "Seizing houses from the rich Jews was left wing." And so on! But no, you never said “rich Jews” and didn’t actually mean “rich Jews” you meant something else! Of course you did. You weren’t at all using the word “rich” to in any way imply this was a socialist policy of wealth redistribution! Credibility check needed me thinks!” So he didn’t come straight back with a clarification. He posted multiple times in the first thread and was challenged and it was only in the next thread where he tried to claim he meant something else. Morley’s entire argument is based on economic policies in isolation and without context. You have literally just proven my point. I literally haven’t. If the Nazis had seized the property of all people who were rich and redistributed that wealth to the ordinary working class Germans, THAT would be a Socialist (well Communist actually) policy. But they didn’t. They seized the property of ALL Jews regardless of their wealth. That is not a Socialist policy. " Quick question: what is socialism and what is a socialist? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Feisty are you now trying to argue the Nazis were socialist? In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated his desire to "make war upon the Marxist principle that all men are equal". He believed that "the notion of equality was a sin against nature." Nazism upheld the "natural inequality of men," including inequality between races and also within each race. The National Socialist state aimed to advance those individuals with special talents or intelligence, so they could rule over the masses. Have I said anything about left or right? For me the Nazi were racist, that's neither left or right. I don't know enough about any of their policies to decide which way side they were. Although, 'ruling over the masses' could be left or right. As I asked in the last thread, is this a case of so far right, almost left? Or vice versa? And I have just revisited the first thread. Morley’s intentions were quite clear by stating RICH Jews more than once. He was trying to make the link to a Socialist policy but failed. Backtracked when called out with ALL Jews but then subsequently continued to reference RICH Jews despite having been pulled up on it. That demonstrates that the point he was making was to link it to a Socialist policy. It wasn’t, otherwise it wouldn’t have been restricted to Jews it would have been all rich people. What does that have to do with the question you asked and my answer?" Meant to reply not reply+quote | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Feisty are you now trying to argue the Nazis were socialist? In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated his desire to "make war upon the Marxist principle that all men are equal". He believed that "the notion of equality was a sin against nature." Nazism upheld the "natural inequality of men," including inequality between races and also within each race. The National Socialist state aimed to advance those individuals with special talents or intelligence, so they could rule over the masses. Have I said anything about left or right? For me the Nazi were racist, that's neither left or right. I don't know enough about any of their policies to decide which way side they were. Although, 'ruling over the masses' could be left or right. As I asked in the last thread, is this a case of so far right, almost left? Or vice versa? And I have just revisited the first thread. Morley’s intentions were quite clear by stating RICH Jews more than once. He was trying to make the link to a Socialist policy but failed. Backtracked when called out with ALL Jews but then subsequently continued to reference RICH Jews despite having been pulled up on it. That demonstrates that the point he was making was to link it to a Socialist policy. It wasn’t, otherwise it wouldn’t have been restricted to Jews it would have been all rich people. What does that have to do with the question you asked and my answer? Meant to reply not reply+quote" Fair. I've always been told the nazis were far right but my understanding is that was more based on the racism. For me racism isn't far right. Although, it's used as an easy win for the left. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So then when I said rich Jews and explained about how Hitler espoused all Jews were rich. And proved that. You still floundered on....for no reason about all Jews. Nope again. This is starting to get so embarrassing for you. Did you or did you not claim seizing the assets of rich jews was evidence of a socialist/left wing economic policy? Yes or No! Careful now because we can cut n paste your first and subsequent posts up to the point you backtracked and tried to say you were saying what Hitler said! Because you keep telling people to go read the original thread I did just that.... Morley mentioned rich Jews... You replied with all Jews... Morley then replied Hitler deemed all Jews rich.... Not after being 'reminded several times', it was instantly. You can't just come and repeat things over and over to try score points, something which you often claim Morley does. It most certainly is a case of pot, kettle here. You are right, it started in the post on political spectrum that then kicked into the Nazi thread. If you had kept reading you would have come to this... “No. I was saying Jews were seen as the rich. Don't tell me what i was and was bot typing." You must be having a bad memory day Morley. On other thread your first reference to Jews and/or seizure of houses was... "They placed emphasis on taking Jewish rich property and taking into the government hands and ordinary workers hands. Doesn't sound right wing to me..." Followed shortly after by... ""Seizing the means of housing " or rich peoples houses and giving to the german worker doesn't exactly scream right wing politics. Instead verybmuch modern left wing. Isn't it what corbyn wanted to do?" And... "They built their entire campaign around the rich specifically the Jews." And I said... "LOLZ You proved my point without even realising it! 1. It wasn’t only rich Jewish property. It was ALL Jewish property." You came back with... "Seizing houses from the rich Jews was left wing." And so on! But no, you never said “rich Jews” and didn’t actually mean “rich Jews” you meant something else! Of course you did. You weren’t at all using the word “rich” to in any way imply this was a socialist policy of wealth redistribution! Credibility check needed me thinks!” So he didn’t come straight back with a clarification. He posted multiple times in the first thread and was challenged and it was only in the next thread where he tried to claim he meant something else. Morley’s entire argument is based on economic policies in isolation and without context. You have literally just proven my point. I literally haven’t. If the Nazis had seized the property of all people who were rich and redistributed that wealth to the ordinary working class Germans, THAT would be a Socialist (well Communist actually) policy. But they didn’t. They seized the property of ALL Jews regardless of their wealth. That is not a Socialist policy. Quick question: what is socialism and what is a socialist?" Off the top of my head, and without quoting an official/recognised definition, I would say in simple terms socialism is about trying to achieve equality and flatten the wealth divide in an attempt to make a fairer society. It is a deeply flawed if seemingly worthy aspiration. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can give you a direct quote if you like. ‘Hitler was never a socialist’ That’s from one of the world’s great historians, who happens to specialise in Nazi Germany. Well done on quoting so.ething from the full fact article you read. The terms is about nazi party and their policies. But. Well done about Hitler. Again This is like saying Karl marx wasn't a socialist He certainly didn't live the life of one. But he espoused the beliefs. Morley, you’re wrong. You’ve been roving wrong time and again. Every historian worth his salt, indeed anyone who has studied history beyond GCSE knows you’re wrong. The ‘Nazis were socialist’ argument comes purely from a lunatic fringe on the right who want to discredit socialists by association with Hitler. It’s infantile and holds up to no scrutiny whatsoever. It’s crank stuff designed to fool the ignorant. I guess it worked. And yet...here we are 40 posts in between you and _irldn. And still not a right win policy. I gave you a right wing policy which you claimed wasn’t right wing. I hate to break it to you, but that’s not how things work. You claimed all racism, anti semitic, eugenics was right wing. I then queried this about Sweden and Iceland. I asked if you saw them as left or right wing. You never answered You know you're in a corner. I certainly never claimed all racism was right wing, you just made that up - but it’s certainly more prevalent on the right. Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? " Clearly not when the left wing party does it. So clearly not right wing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Feisty are you now trying to argue the Nazis were socialist? In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated his desire to "make war upon the Marxist principle that all men are equal". He believed that "the notion of equality was a sin against nature." Nazism upheld the "natural inequality of men," including inequality between races and also within each race. The National Socialist state aimed to advance those individuals with special talents or intelligence, so they could rule over the masses. Have I said anything about left or right? For me the Nazi were racist, that's neither left or right. I don't know enough about any of their policies to decide which way side they were. Although, 'ruling over the masses' could be left or right. As I asked in the last thread, is this a case of so far right, almost left? Or vice versa? And I have just revisited the first thread. Morley’s intentions were quite clear by stating RICH Jews more than once. He was trying to make the link to a Socialist policy but failed. Backtracked when called out with ALL Jews but then subsequently continued to reference RICH Jews despite having been pulled up on it. That demonstrates that the point he was making was to link it to a Socialist policy. It wasn’t, otherwise it wouldn’t have been restricted to Jews it would have been all rich people. What does that have to do with the question you asked and my answer? Meant to reply not reply+quote Fair. I've always been told the nazis were far right but my understanding is that was more based on the racism. For me racism isn't far right. Although, it's used as an easy win for the left. " Racism is not an indicator of left or right. It is an indicator of being a cunt. There have been utter cunts across the whole political spectrum. Racism is not why the Nazis are considered right wing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So then when I said rich Jews and explained about how Hitler espoused all Jews were rich. And proved that. You still floundered on....for no reason about all Jews. Nope again. This is starting to get so embarrassing for you. Did you or did you not claim seizing the assets of rich jews was evidence of a socialist/left wing economic policy? Yes or No! Careful now because we can cut n paste your first and subsequent posts up to the point you backtracked and tried to say you were saying what Hitler said! Because you keep telling people to go read the original thread I did just that.... Morley mentioned rich Jews... You replied with all Jews... Morley then replied Hitler deemed all Jews rich.... Not after being 'reminded several times', it was instantly. You can't just come and repeat things over and over to try score points, something which you often claim Morley does. It most certainly is a case of pot, kettle here. You are right, it started in the post on political spectrum that then kicked into the Nazi thread. If you had kept reading you would have come to this... “No. I was saying Jews were seen as the rich. Don't tell me what i was and was bot typing." You must be having a bad memory day Morley. On other thread your first reference to Jews and/or seizure of houses was... "They placed emphasis on taking Jewish rich property and taking into the government hands and ordinary workers hands. Doesn't sound right wing to me..." Followed shortly after by... ""Seizing the means of housing " or rich peoples houses and giving to the german worker doesn't exactly scream right wing politics. Instead verybmuch modern left wing. Isn't it what corbyn wanted to do?" And... "They built their entire campaign around the rich specifically the Jews." And I said... "LOLZ You proved my point without even realising it! 1. It wasn’t only rich Jewish property. It was ALL Jewish property." You came back with... "Seizing houses from the rich Jews was left wing." And so on! But no, you never said “rich Jews” and didn’t actually mean “rich Jews” you meant something else! Of course you did. You weren’t at all using the word “rich” to in any way imply this was a socialist policy of wealth redistribution! Credibility check needed me thinks!” So he didn’t come straight back with a clarification. He posted multiple times in the first thread and was challenged and it was only in the next thread where he tried to claim he meant something else. Morley’s entire argument is based on economic policies in isolation and without context. I went to the thread you linked. He may have said rich multiple times in one post but after you corrected him, he acknowledged in the very next post. Come on, your here crying about people misrepresenting yet you're doing it yourself. You were the one who told people to go look, I did. I find he doesn't need reminding multiple times which was your claim. As you say, it's there for all to see, should they wish. Simply isn’t true. He made reference to rich jews in several separate posts in that thread. Each quote above was a separate post. He was challenged several times before changing his story. Of course it's true. I read what you told me to read. As you said, there for all to see. He may well have gone on to say rich Jews in further posts, I didn't bother reading after I found him say Hitler seen all Jews as rich. That's the important point you were trying to say didn't happen until after he was 'reminded multiple times' Morley was clearly trying to claim it was a socialist wealth redistribution policy. It wasn’t. He kept referring to RICH to underscore that point." It was a wealth re distribution policy. The Jews were seen as rich and having 80% of the wealth. It was taken from them Jesus christ. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So that’s Morley’s “Nazis must be socialist because they seized rich (oops all) Jews property and gave it to Aryan Germans” dealt with. So what next? Trade Unions? Charities? Views on Middle Class? Views on Social Class? Views on Communism/Socialism/Marcism? The purpose of the economy?" Yes dealt with. As they redistribution the wealth to working class and nationalised the industries. You often claim you want water ?electricity, trains nationalised. Are younsaying the state operating things rather than private entities isn't left wing policy. Because you may wish to tell pretty much every labour voter this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Feisty are you now trying to argue the Nazis were socialist? In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated his desire to "make war upon the Marxist principle that all men are equal". He believed that "the notion of equality was a sin against nature." Nazism upheld the "natural inequality of men," including inequality between races and also within each race. The National Socialist state aimed to advance those individuals with special talents or intelligence, so they could rule over the masses. Have I said anything about left or right? For me the Nazi were racist, that's neither left or right. I don't know enough about any of their policies to decide which way side they were. Although, 'ruling over the masses' could be left or right. As I asked in the last thread, is this a case of so far right, almost left? Or vice versa? And I have just revisited the first thread. Morley’s intentions were quite clear by stating RICH Jews more than once. He was trying to make the link to a Socialist policy but failed. Backtracked when called out with ALL Jews but then subsequently continued to reference RICH Jews despite having been pulled up on it. That demonstrates that the point he was making was to link it to a Socialist policy. It wasn’t, otherwise it wouldn’t have been restricted to Jews it would have been all rich people." Yes I said rich Jews more than once. I thought my reply clarifying hitlers stance was enough and continued using it. Obviously for you it wasn't. But for others it was. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Feisty are you now trying to argue the Nazis were socialist? In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated his desire to "make war upon the Marxist principle that all men are equal". He believed that "the notion of equality was a sin against nature." Nazism upheld the "natural inequality of men," including inequality between races and also within each race. The National Socialist state aimed to advance those individuals with special talents or intelligence, so they could rule over the masses. Have I said anything about left or right? For me the Nazi were racist, that's neither left or right. I don't know enough about any of their policies to decide which way side they were. Although, 'ruling over the masses' could be left or right. As I asked in the last thread, is this a case of so far right, almost left? Or vice versa? And I have just revisited the first thread. Morley’s intentions were quite clear by stating RICH Jews more than once. He was trying to make the link to a Socialist policy but failed. Backtracked when called out with ALL Jews but then subsequently continued to reference RICH Jews despite having been pulled up on it. That demonstrates that the point he was making was to link it to a Socialist policy. It wasn’t, otherwise it wouldn’t have been restricted to Jews it would have been all rich people. What does that have to do with the question you asked and my answer? Meant to reply not reply+quote Fair. I've always been told the nazis were far right but my understanding is that was more based on the racism. For me racism isn't far right. Although, it's used as an easy win for the left. " .ironically where this discussion came from. Because of an attempt to paint any one racist or xenophobic as far right. Which of course would mean many left of centre regimes as now far right. I originally asked 2 or so weeks ago how people declared nigel farage as far right and a xenophobe when he was married to a German lady. I got no answer. Just like I get no answer of nazi right wing policies other than they disliked Jews and tortured people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I gave you a right wing policy which you claimed wasn’t right wing. I hate to break it to you, but that’s not how things work." That's how it worked in the other thread. Several examples of left wing policies were presented, and each one was dismissed with "that doesn't count because it was for militaristic purposes". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion?" No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So then when I said rich Jews and explained about how Hitler espoused all Jews were rich. And proved that. You still floundered on....for no reason about all Jews. Nope again. This is starting to get so embarrassing for you. Did you or did you not claim seizing the assets of rich jews was evidence of a socialist/left wing economic policy? Yes or No! Careful now because we can cut n paste your first and subsequent posts up to the point you backtracked and tried to say you were saying what Hitler said! Because you keep telling people to go read the original thread I did just that.... Morley mentioned rich Jews... You replied with all Jews... Morley then replied Hitler deemed all Jews rich.... Not after being 'reminded several times', it was instantly. You can't just come and repeat things over and over to try score points, something which you often claim Morley does. It most certainly is a case of pot, kettle here. You are right, it started in the post on political spectrum that then kicked into the Nazi thread. If you had kept reading you would have come to this... “No. I was saying Jews were seen as the rich. Don't tell me what i was and was bot typing." You must be having a bad memory day Morley. On other thread your first reference to Jews and/or seizure of houses was... "They placed emphasis on taking Jewish rich property and taking into the government hands and ordinary workers hands. Doesn't sound right wing to me..." Followed shortly after by... ""Seizing the means of housing " or rich peoples houses and giving to the german worker doesn't exactly scream right wing politics. Instead verybmuch modern left wing. Isn't it what corbyn wanted to do?" And... "They built their entire campaign around the rich specifically the Jews." And I said... "LOLZ You proved my point without even realising it! 1. It wasn’t only rich Jewish property. It was ALL Jewish property." You came back with... "Seizing houses from the rich Jews was left wing." And so on! But no, you never said “rich Jews” and didn’t actually mean “rich Jews” you meant something else! Of course you did. You weren’t at all using the word “rich” to in any way imply this was a socialist policy of wealth redistribution! Credibility check needed me thinks!” So he didn’t come straight back with a clarification. He posted multiple times in the first thread and was challenged and it was only in the next thread where he tried to claim he meant something else. Morley’s entire argument is based on economic policies in isolation and without context. I went to the thread you linked. He may have said rich multiple times in one post but after you corrected him, he acknowledged in the very next post. Come on, your here crying about people misrepresenting yet you're doing it yourself. You were the one who told people to go look, I did. I find he doesn't need reminding multiple times which was your claim. As you say, it's there for all to see, should they wish. Simply isn’t true. He made reference to rich jews in several separate posts in that thread. Each quote above was a separate post. He was challenged several times before changing his story. Of course it's true. I read what you told me to read. As you said, there for all to see. He may well have gone on to say rich Jews in further posts, I didn't bother reading after I found him say Hitler seen all Jews as rich. That's the important point you were trying to say didn't happen until after he was 'reminded multiple times' Morley was clearly trying to claim it was a socialist wealth redistribution policy. It wasn’t. He kept referring to RICH to underscore that point. It was a wealth re distribution policy. The Jews were seen as rich and having 80% of the wealth. It was taken from them Jesus christ. " It was a racist/anti-semitic policy designed to exclude Jews from society by denying them assets or jobs. It was what historians have termed Social Darwinism. If it had been about wealth redistribution it would have been the rich per se. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So then when I said rich Jews and explained about how Hitler espoused all Jews were rich. And proved that. You still floundered on....for no reason about all Jews. Nope again. This is starting to get so embarrassing for you. Did you or did you not claim seizing the assets of rich jews was evidence of a socialist/left wing economic policy? Yes or No! Careful now because we can cut n paste your first and subsequent posts up to the point you backtracked and tried to say you were saying what Hitler said! Because you keep telling people to go read the original thread I did just that.... Morley mentioned rich Jews... You replied with all Jews... Morley then replied Hitler deemed all Jews rich.... Not after being 'reminded several times', it was instantly. You can't just come and repeat things over and over to try score points, something which you often claim Morley does. It most certainly is a case of pot, kettle here. You are right, it started in the post on political spectrum that then kicked into the Nazi thread. If you had kept reading you would have come to this... “No. I was saying Jews were seen as the rich. Don't tell me what i was and was bot typing." You must be having a bad memory day Morley. On other thread your first reference to Jews and/or seizure of houses was... "They placed emphasis on taking Jewish rich property and taking into the government hands and ordinary workers hands. Doesn't sound right wing to me..." Followed shortly after by... ""Seizing the means of housing " or rich peoples houses and giving to the german worker doesn't exactly scream right wing politics. Instead verybmuch modern left wing. Isn't it what corbyn wanted to do?" And... "They built their entire campaign around the rich specifically the Jews." And I said... "LOLZ You proved my point without even realising it! 1. It wasn’t only rich Jewish property. It was ALL Jewish property." You came back with... "Seizing houses from the rich Jews was left wing." And so on! But no, you never said “rich Jews” and didn’t actually mean “rich Jews” you meant something else! Of course you did. You weren’t at all using the word “rich” to in any way imply this was a socialist policy of wealth redistribution! Credibility check needed me thinks!” So he didn’t come straight back with a clarification. He posted multiple times in the first thread and was challenged and it was only in the next thread where he tried to claim he meant something else. Morley’s entire argument is based on economic policies in isolation and without context. You have literally just proven my point. I literally haven’t. If the Nazis had seized the property of all people who were rich and redistributed that wealth to the ordinary working class Germans, THAT would be a Socialist (well Communist actually) policy. But they didn’t. They seized the property of ALL Jews regardless of their wealth. That is not a Socialist policy. Quick question: what is socialism and what is a socialist? Off the top of my head, and without quoting an official/recognised definition, I would say in simple terms socialism is about trying to achieve equality and flatten the wealth divide in an attempt to make a fairer society. It is a deeply flawed if seemingly worthy aspiration." If a leader decides to achieve equality and remove a perceived wealth divide, to make their society much fairer for the population of the country, that would be socialism? Is it the way a leader goes about those tasks that make them more or less socialist? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Feisty are you now trying to argue the Nazis were socialist? In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated his desire to "make war upon the Marxist principle that all men are equal"." Yes, because he believed that the Jews were polluting the pure blood of the Aryan race. That's a racist view, not a right wing view. "He believed that "the notion of equality was a sin against nature."" Yes, because he was racist. "Nazism upheld the "natural inequality of men," including inequality between races and also within each race." Yes, because he was racist. "The National Socialist state aimed to advance those individuals with special talents or intelligence, so they could rule over the masses." Yes, he thought that the Aryan race was superior to all other races, and should rule over the lower races. Because he was racist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Feisty are you now trying to argue the Nazis were socialist? In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated his desire to "make war upon the Marxist principle that all men are equal". He believed that "the notion of equality was a sin against nature." Nazism upheld the "natural inequality of men," including inequality between races and also within each race. The National Socialist state aimed to advance those individuals with special talents or intelligence, so they could rule over the masses. Have I said anything about left or right? For me the Nazi were racist, that's neither left or right. I don't know enough about any of their policies to decide which way side they were. Although, 'ruling over the masses' could be left or right. As I asked in the last thread, is this a case of so far right, almost left? Or vice versa? And I have just revisited the first thread. Morley’s intentions were quite clear by stating RICH Jews more than once. He was trying to make the link to a Socialist policy but failed. Backtracked when called out with ALL Jews but then subsequently continued to reference RICH Jews despite having been pulled up on it. That demonstrates that the point he was making was to link it to a Socialist policy. It wasn’t, otherwise it wouldn’t have been restricted to Jews it would have been all rich people. What does that have to do with the question you asked and my answer? Meant to reply not reply+quote Fair. I've always been told the nazis were far right but my understanding is that was more based on the racism. For me racism isn't far right. Although, it's used as an easy win for the left. Racism is not an indicator of left or right. It is an indicator of being a cunt. There have been utter cunts across the whole political spectrum. Racism is not why the Nazis are considered right wing. " This is where it gets cloudy. Racism is not why Nazis are right wing but we now have neo-nazis who are fully racist and supposedly far-right. They have no political affiliation. I can't square that circle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Feisty are you now trying to argue the Nazis were socialist? In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated his desire to "make war upon the Marxist principle that all men are equal". He believed that "the notion of equality was a sin against nature." Nazism upheld the "natural inequality of men," including inequality between races and also within each race. The National Socialist state aimed to advance those individuals with special talents or intelligence, so they could rule over the masses. Have I said anything about left or right? For me the Nazi were racist, that's neither left or right. I don't know enough about any of their policies to decide which way side they were. Although, 'ruling over the masses' could be left or right. As I asked in the last thread, is this a case of so far right, almost left? Or vice versa? And I have just revisited the first thread. Morley’s intentions were quite clear by stating RICH Jews more than once. He was trying to make the link to a Socialist policy but failed. Backtracked when called out with ALL Jews but then subsequently continued to reference RICH Jews despite having been pulled up on it. That demonstrates that the point he was making was to link it to a Socialist policy. It wasn’t, otherwise it wouldn’t have been restricted to Jews it would have been all rich people. Yes I said rich Jews more than once. I thought my reply clarifying hitlers stance was enough and continued using it. Obviously for you it wasn't. But for others it was." Backtracking when you were called out. Your repeated references to “rich” was in the context of trying to prove they were socialist. You messed up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Feisty are you now trying to argue the Nazis were socialist? In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated his desire to "make war upon the Marxist principle that all men are equal". Yes, because he believed that the Jews were polluting the pure blood of the Aryan race. That's a racist view, not a right wing view. He believed that "the notion of equality was a sin against nature." Yes, because he was racist. Nazism upheld the "natural inequality of men," including inequality between races and also within each race. Yes, because he was racist. The National Socialist state aimed to advance those individuals with special talents or intelligence, so they could rule over the masses. Yes, he thought that the Aryan race was superior to all other races, and should rule over the lower races. Because he was racist." But not socialist | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So that’s Morley’s “Nazis must be socialist because they seized rich (oops all) Jews property and gave it to Aryan Germans” dealt with. So what next? Trade Unions? Charities? Views on Middle Class? Views on Social Class? Views on Communism/Socialism/Marcism? The purpose of the economy? Yes dealt with. As they redistribution the wealth to working class and nationalised the industries. You often claim you want water ?electricity, trains nationalised. Are younsaying the state operating things rather than private entities isn't left wing policy. Because you may wish to tell pretty much every labour voter this " Thanks yes dealt with. You were wrong thanks for admitting it. Purely a racist not economic policy. Hmmm stare ownership...Instead of traditional economic incentives, the Nazis offered solutions of a political nature, such as the elimination of organised trade unions, rearmament (in contravention of the Versailles Treaty) and biological politics. While other Western capitalist countries strove for increased state ownership of industry during the same period (the Great Depression and aftermath) the Nazis transferred public ownership into the private sector and handed over some public services to private organisations, mostly affiliated with the Nazi Party. It was an intentional policy with multiple objectives rather than ideologically driven and was used as a tool to enhance support for the Nazi government and the party. Hitler believed that private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation, but insisted that it had to conform to national interests and be "productive" rather than "parasitical". Private property rights were conditional upon following the economic priorities set by the Nazi leadership, with high profits as a reward for firms who followed them and the threat of nationalisation being used against those who did not. Under Nazi economics, free competition and self-regulating markets diminished, but Hitler's social Darwinist beliefs made him retain business competition and private property as economic engines. Doesn’t sound that left wing/socialist to me! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"While other Western capitalist countries strove for increased state ownership of industry during the same period (the Great Depression and aftermath) the Nazis transferred public ownership into the private sector and handed over some public services to private organisations, mostly affiliated with the Nazi Party. It was an intentional policy with multiple objectives rather than ideologically driven and was used as a tool to enhance support for the Nazi government and the party. Hitler believed that private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation, but insisted that it had to conform to national interests and be "productive" rather than "parasitical". Private property rights were conditional upon following the economic priorities set by the Nazi leadership, with high profits as a reward for firms who followed them and the threat of nationalisation being used against those who did not. Under Nazi economics, free competition and self-regulating markets diminished, but Hitler's social Darwinist beliefs made him retain business competition and private property as economic engines. Doesn’t sound that left wing/socialist to me!" You clearly aren't reading the same words I am. To cherry pick - "insisted that [business] had to conform to national interests and be 'productive'", "Private property rights were conditional upon following the economic priorities set by the leadership", "threat of nationalisation", "free competition and self-regulating markets diminished". Those all sound quite socialist. Which bits of your post do you see to be right wing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"While other Western capitalist countries strove for increased state ownership of industry during the same period (the Great Depression and aftermath) the Nazis transferred public ownership into the private sector and handed over some public services to private organisations, mostly affiliated with the Nazi Party. It was an intentional policy with multiple objectives rather than ideologically driven and was used as a tool to enhance support for the Nazi government and the party. Hitler believed that private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation, but insisted that it had to conform to national interests and be "productive" rather than "parasitical". Private property rights were conditional upon following the economic priorities set by the Nazi leadership, with high profits as a reward for firms who followed them and the threat of nationalisation being used against those who did not. Under Nazi economics, free competition and self-regulating markets diminished, but Hitler's social Darwinist beliefs made him retain business competition and private property as economic engines. Doesn’t sound that left wing/socialist to me! You clearly aren't reading the same words I am. To cherry pick - "insisted that [business] had to conform to national interests and be 'productive'", "Private property rights were conditional upon following the economic priorities set by the leadership", "threat of nationalisation", "free competition and self-regulating markets diminished". Those all sound quite socialist. Which bits of your post do you see to be right wing?" Just one example “private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation” It all comes back to the point I have made since the beginning. EVERYTHING the Nazis did (ergo Hitler) was subservient to militarisation. The Nazis were magpies willing to appropriate anything that achieved their ultimate aims. They had no interest in equality. They were not supportive of class struggle. The Nazis claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations because of its intention to dissolve private property, its support of class conflict, its aggression against the middle class, its hostility towards small business and its atheism. Nazism rejected class conflict-based socialism and economic egalitarianism, favouring instead a stratified economy with social classes based on merit and talent, retaining private property and the creation of national solidarity that transcends class distinction. They were not socialist! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"While other Western capitalist countries strove for increased state ownership of industry during the same period (the Great Depression and aftermath) the Nazis transferred public ownership into the private sector and handed over some public services to private organisations, mostly affiliated with the Nazi Party. It was an intentional policy with multiple objectives rather than ideologically driven and was used as a tool to enhance support for the Nazi government and the party. Hitler believed that private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation, but insisted that it had to conform to national interests and be "productive" rather than "parasitical". Private property rights were conditional upon following the economic priorities set by the Nazi leadership, with high profits as a reward for firms who followed them and the threat of nationalisation being used against those who did not. Under Nazi economics, free competition and self-regulating markets diminished, but Hitler's social Darwinist beliefs made him retain business competition and private property as economic engines. Doesn’t sound that left wing/socialist to me! You clearly aren't reading the same words I am. To cherry pick - "insisted that [business] had to conform to national interests and be 'productive'", "Private property rights were conditional upon following the economic priorities set by the leadership", "threat of nationalisation", "free competition and self-regulating markets diminished". Those all sound quite socialist. Which bits of your post do you see to be right wing? Just one example “private ownership was useful in that it encouraged creative competition and technical innovation” It all comes back to the point I have made since the beginning. EVERYTHING the Nazis did (ergo Hitler) was subservient to militarisation. The Nazis were magpies willing to appropriate anything that achieved their ultimate aims. They had no interest in equality. They were not supportive of class struggle. The Nazis claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations because of its intention to dissolve private property, its support of class conflict, its aggression against the middle class, its hostility towards small business and its atheism. Nazism rejected class conflict-based socialism and economic egalitarianism, favouring instead a stratified economy with social classes based on merit and talent, retaining private property and the creation of national solidarity that transcends class distinction. They were not socialist!" What was Hitler's aim for the people of Germany under his rule? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base." I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree?" In a how far right is X comparison: Who was more right wing hitler or Mussolini? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? In a how far right is X comparison: Who was more right wing hitler or Mussolini? " Both were outright fascists. It’s not a pissing contest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? In a how far right is X comparison: Who was more right wing hitler or Mussolini? Both were outright fascists. It’s not a pissing contest. " There must be scale?? Where would Thatcher and Sunak sit? They are referred too as right wing today | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? In a how far right is X comparison: Who was more right wing hitler or Mussolini? Both were outright fascists. It’s not a pissing contest. There must be scale?? Where would Thatcher and Sunak sit? They are referred too as right wing today" They’re not referred to as fascists, though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? In a how far right is X comparison: Who was more right wing hitler or Mussolini? Both were outright fascists. It’s not a pissing contest. There must be scale?? Where would Thatcher and Sunak sit? They are referred too as right wing today They’re not referred to as fascists, though. " How right wing are the tory party? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? In a how far right is X comparison: Who was more right wing hitler or Mussolini? Both were outright fascists. It’s not a pissing contest. There must be scale?? Where would Thatcher and Sunak sit? They are referred too as right wing today They’re not referred to as fascists, though. How right wing are the tory party?" Quite. The Overton window has shifted so far that even some (thinking) people who voted Thatcher don't vote Tory now yet their ideology hasn't changed. Also, the Tories a couple of years ago lifted actual BNP policies as theirs, so yanno. The world has seen a shift towards the right as capitalism goes into it's death throes and needs fascism to prop it up. Anyway, broadly speaking, Nazism being alright 'a bit' isn't up for discussion, but thanks to this post for alerting me to massive red flag people I've now blocked. Imagine being on a public site and outing yourself as a Nazi sympathiser in any remote way. I hope all the target audience see this and act accordingly  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It all comes back to the point I have made since the beginning. EVERYTHING the Nazis did (ergo Hitler) was subservient to militarisation." So we can agree then that none of the Nazis actions can be taken as capitalist or socialist, left-wing or right-wing, because it was all about militarisation. Is that a reasonable statement? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion?" "No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base." "I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree?" I have no idea who Ian Kershaw is, or how well respected he is, but if his argument is that the Nazis were racist and therefore they were right-wing, I'm going to respectfully disagree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, the Tories a couple of years ago lifted actual BNP policies as theirs, so yanno." They also lifted a Monster Raving Loony Party policy (passports for pets). Would you like to tell us what these awful BNP policies were? "Anyway, broadly speaking, Nazism being alright 'a bit' isn't up for discussion, but thanks to this post for alerting me to massive red flag people I've now blocked. Imagine being on a public site and outing yourself as a Nazi sympathiser in any remote way." I don't see anyone here even remotely sympathising with the Nazis. I think we're all very clear that they were horrible people, with a loathsome philosophy. We're just disagreeing on whether they did stuff with the aim of bettering the German people, or the intention of bettering German businesses. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Feisty are you now trying to argue the Nazis were socialist? In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated his desire to "make war upon the Marxist principle that all men are equal". He believed that "the notion of equality was a sin against nature." Nazism upheld the "natural inequality of men," including inequality between races and also within each race. The National Socialist state aimed to advance those individuals with special talents or intelligence, so they could rule over the masses. Have I said anything about left or right? For me the Nazi were racist, that's neither left or right. I don't know enough about any of their policies to decide which way side they were. Although, 'ruling over the masses' could be left or right. As I asked in the last thread, is this a case of so far right, almost left? Or vice versa?" I'm with you. When you have a one party state left and right become immaterial. It's dictatorial. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? I have no idea who Ian Kershaw is, or how well respected he is, but if his argument is that the Nazis were racist and therefore they were right-wing, I'm going to respectfully disagree." Maybe check him out. He knows more about Nazi Germany than anyone on this thread, for sure, and certainly more than the OP. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, the Tories a couple of years ago lifted actual BNP policies as theirs, so yanno. They also lifted a Monster Raving Loony Party policy (passports for pets). Would you like to tell us what these awful BNP policies were? Anyway, broadly speaking, Nazism being alright 'a bit' isn't up for discussion, but thanks to this post for alerting me to massive red flag people I've now blocked. Imagine being on a public site and outing yourself as a Nazi sympathiser in any remote way. I don't see anyone here even remotely sympathising with the Nazis. I think we're all very clear that they were horrible people, with a loathsome philosophy. We're just disagreeing on whether they did stuff with the aim of bettering the German people, or the intention of bettering German businesses." in not even sure if use "lettering German people" as a way of saying left v right, but this does show we need a common definition of left and right before having this discussion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It all comes back to the point I have made since the beginning. EVERYTHING the Nazis did (ergo Hitler) was subservient to militarisation. So we can agree then that none of the Nazis actions can be taken as capitalist or socialist, left-wing or right-wing, because it was all about militarisation. Is that a reasonable statement?" Well on becoming Fuhrer Hitler said that "the future of Germany depends exclusively and only on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht. All other tasks must cede precedence to the task of rearmament." So I can see why you would say that and would be interested to read your argument in support of that. I wouldn’t because there are other characteristics of Nazism that correlate directly with Fascism. According to Umberto Eco (well worth looking up) there are 14 signs of fascism: 1. The cult of tradition. This is the belief that the truth is already known once and for all. Fascists believe there is no need to advance in learning. 2. The rejection of modernism. Fascists reject the Enlightenment and its evidence-based rationality. 3. The cult of action for action’s sake. Fascist leaders act impulsively, without thinking or planning ahead. 4. No analytical criticism. Fascists ignore nuance and see any disagreement as treasonous. 5. Fear of difference. Fascists fear diversity. Thus they are racist by definition. 6. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. An economically frustrated and/or politically marginalized middle class is easy to stir to anger. 7. Obsession with a plot. Because the followers must be made to feel besieged, an internal “enemy” is provided: Immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks. (Historically the Jews were often made to be “the enemy.”) 8. Anti-elitism. The followers are made to feel humiliated by the wealth and strength of the educated “elite.” This is used to create resentment. 9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. Fascists believe that life is permanent warfare. Therefore a desire for peace is treasonous. 10. Contempt for the weak. A fascist leader despises his underlings, who in turn despise those under them. They all either mock or ignore the poor, the sick, and the disabled. 11. The cult of heroism. The Fascist is eager to die a hero’s death. In his impatience, he frequently sends other people to their deaths. 12. Machismo. Fascists show disdain for women, disregard for chastity, and condemnation of homosexuality. 13. Selective populism. Under fascism, the “voice of the people” is not the democratic majority, but only the voices of those who support the leader. 14. Ur-fascism speaks Newspeak. Just as in Orwell’s 1984, Fascists use an impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax to limit complex and critical reasoning. And this is precisely what I mean when I say (historical) context matters. Morley has repeatedly focused on a selection of economic policies in isolation from context, despite me constantly saying that doesn’t work. Without doubt some policies of the Nazis can be seen in isolation as having socialist characteristics, but it is the collective, the sum not the parts, that defines whether they can be viewed as left or right, socialist or fascist. As I said in the other thread, there are a list of policies that were enacted under the Johnson govt that in isolation could be argued are socialist. Would anyone really argue Johnson and the Tories were socialists? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? In a how far right is X comparison: Who was more right wing hitler or Mussolini? Both were outright fascists. It’s not a pissing contest. There must be scale?? Where would Thatcher and Sunak sit? They are referred too as right wing today They’re not referred to as fascists, though. How right wing are the tory party? Quite. The Overton window has shifted so far that even some (thinking) people who voted Thatcher don't vote Tory now yet their ideology hasn't changed. Also, the Tories a couple of years ago lifted actual BNP policies as theirs, so yanno. The world has seen a shift towards the right as capitalism goes into it's death throes and needs fascism to prop it up. Anyway, broadly speaking, Nazism being alright 'a bit' isn't up for discussion, but thanks to this post for alerting me to massive red flag people I've now blocked. Imagine being on a public site and outing yourself as a Nazi sympathiser in any remote way. I hope all the target audience see this and act accordingly "Not one person on this thread has sympathised with hitler or the nazi's. Where did you get that idea from? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? In a how far right is X comparison: Who was more right wing hitler or Mussolini? Both were outright fascists. It’s not a pissing contest. There must be scale?? Where would Thatcher and Sunak sit? They are referred too as right wing today They’re not referred to as fascists, though. How right wing are the tory party? Quite. The Overton window has shifted so far that even some (thinking) people who voted Thatcher don't vote Tory now yet their ideology hasn't changed. Also, the Tories a couple of years ago lifted actual BNP policies as theirs, so yanno. The world has seen a shift towards the right as capitalism goes into it's death throes and needs fascism to prop it up. Anyway, broadly speaking, Nazism being alright 'a bit' isn't up for discussion, but thanks to this post for alerting me to massive red flag people I've now blocked. Imagine being on a public site and outing yourself as a Nazi sympathiser in any remote way. I hope all the target audience see this and act accordingly
Not one person on this thread has sympathised with hitler or the nazi's. Where did you get that idea from? "I’d agree that nobody has sympathised with the Nazis, but what do you think is the right-wing motivation for claiming (against virtually every historian/expert in the world) that the Nazis weren’t right wing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? In a how far right is X comparison: Who was more right wing hitler or Mussolini? Both were outright fascists. It’s not a pissing contest. There must be scale?? Where would Thatcher and Sunak sit? They are referred too as right wing today They’re not referred to as fascists, though. How right wing are the tory party? Quite. The Overton window has shifted so far that even some (thinking) people who voted Thatcher don't vote Tory now yet their ideology hasn't changed. Also, the Tories a couple of years ago lifted actual BNP policies as theirs, so yanno. The world has seen a shift towards the right as capitalism goes into it's death throes and needs fascism to prop it up. Anyway, broadly speaking, Nazism being alright 'a bit' isn't up for discussion, but thanks to this post for alerting me to massive red flag people I've now blocked. Imagine being on a public site and outing yourself as a Nazi sympathiser in any remote way. I hope all the target audience see this and act accordingly
Not one person on this thread has sympathised with hitler or the nazi's. Where did you get that idea from?
I’d agree that nobody has sympathised with the Nazis, but what do you think is the right-wing motivation for claiming (against virtually every historian/expert in the world) that the Nazis weren’t right wing? "I think politics is never a straight line, with everything fitting neatly into boxes. Where we are today in society is million miles away from the 1930's - 1940's, and when you call politics right wing today, they would not have been recognised back then as such. If you take hitler and his intentions, and take hitler his actions you have 2 very different outcomes, leading possibly to different conclusions. However, there is no doubt that he was an evil this planet should never have had to suffer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? In a how far right is X comparison: Who was more right wing hitler or Mussolini? Both were outright fascists. It’s not a pissing contest. There must be scale?? Where would Thatcher and Sunak sit? They are referred too as right wing today They’re not referred to as fascists, though. How right wing are the tory party? Quite. The Overton window has shifted so far that even some (thinking) people who voted Thatcher don't vote Tory now yet their ideology hasn't changed. Also, the Tories a couple of years ago lifted actual BNP policies as theirs, so yanno. The world has seen a shift towards the right as capitalism goes into it's death throes and needs fascism to prop it up. Anyway, broadly speaking, Nazism being alright 'a bit' isn't up for discussion, but thanks to this post for alerting me to massive red flag people I've now blocked. Imagine being on a public site and outing yourself as a Nazi sympathiser in any remote way. I hope all the target audience see this and act accordingly
Not one person on this thread has sympathised with hitler or the nazi's. Where did you get that idea from?
I’d agree that nobody has sympathised with the Nazis, but what do you think is the right-wing motivation for claiming (against virtually every historian/expert in the world) that the Nazis weren’t right wing? "The revisionist history around the Nazis really kicked off in the 80s with the rise of Neo-Liberalism and the desire to deregulate labour markets. The intent was to try and associate the Nazis with the left and socialism to paint those concepts as undesirable in the wider consciousness. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? In a how far right is X comparison: Who was more right wing hitler or Mussolini? Both were outright fascists. It’s not a pissing contest. There must be scale?? Where would Thatcher and Sunak sit? They are referred too as right wing today They’re not referred to as fascists, though. How right wing are the tory party? Quite. The Overton window has shifted so far that even some (thinking) people who voted Thatcher don't vote Tory now yet their ideology hasn't changed. Also, the Tories a couple of years ago lifted actual BNP policies as theirs, so yanno. The world has seen a shift towards the right as capitalism goes into it's death throes and needs fascism to prop it up. Anyway, broadly speaking, Nazism being alright 'a bit' isn't up for discussion, but thanks to this post for alerting me to massive red flag people I've now blocked. Imagine being on a public site and outing yourself as a Nazi sympathiser in any remote way. I hope all the target audience see this and act accordingly
Not one person on this thread has sympathised with hitler or the nazi's. Where did you get that idea from?
I’d agree that nobody has sympathised with the Nazis, but what do you think is the right-wing motivation for claiming (against virtually every historian/expert in the world) that the Nazis weren’t right wing?
I think politics is never a straight line, with everything fitting neatly into boxes.
Where we are today in society is million miles away from the 1930's - 1940's, and when you call politics right wing today, they would not have been recognised back then as such.
If you take hitler and his intentions, and take hitler his actions you have 2 very different outcomes, leading possibly to different conclusions. However, there is no doubt that he was an evil this planet should never have had to suffer."And yet some conservative politicians of the time sought to side with Hitler as he rose to prominence, including from the U.K and USA. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? In a how far right is X comparison: Who was more right wing hitler or Mussolini? Both were outright fascists. It’s not a pissing contest. There must be scale?? Where would Thatcher and Sunak sit? They are referred too as right wing today They’re not referred to as fascists, though. How right wing are the tory party? Quite. The Overton window has shifted so far that even some (thinking) people who voted Thatcher don't vote Tory now yet their ideology hasn't changed. Also, the Tories a couple of years ago lifted actual BNP policies as theirs, so yanno. The world has seen a shift towards the right as capitalism goes into it's death throes and needs fascism to prop it up. Anyway, broadly speaking, Nazism being alright 'a bit' isn't up for discussion, but thanks to this post for alerting me to massive red flag people I've now blocked. Imagine being on a public site and outing yourself as a Nazi sympathiser in any remote way. I hope all the target audience see this and act accordingly
Not one person on this thread has sympathised with hitler or the nazi's. Where did you get that idea from?
I’d agree that nobody has sympathised with the Nazis, but what do you think is the right-wing motivation for claiming (against virtually every historian/expert in the world) that the Nazis weren’t right wing?
The revisionist history around the Nazis really kicked off in the 80s with the rise of Neo-Liberalism and the desire to deregulate labour markets. The intent was to try and associate the Nazis with the left and socialism to paint those concepts as undesirable in the wider consciousness." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? In a how far right is X comparison: Who was more right wing hitler or Mussolini? Both were outright fascists. It’s not a pissing contest. There must be scale?? Where would Thatcher and Sunak sit? They are referred too as right wing today They’re not referred to as fascists, though. How right wing are the tory party? Quite. The Overton window has shifted so far that even some (thinking) people who voted Thatcher don't vote Tory now yet their ideology hasn't changed. Also, the Tories a couple of years ago lifted actual BNP policies as theirs, so yanno. The world has seen a shift towards the right as capitalism goes into it's death throes and needs fascism to prop it up. Anyway, broadly speaking, Nazism being alright 'a bit' isn't up for discussion, but thanks to this post for alerting me to massive red flag people I've now blocked. Imagine being on a public site and outing yourself as a Nazi sympathiser in any remote way. I hope all the target audience see this and act accordingly
Not one person on this thread has sympathised with hitler or the nazi's. Where did you get that idea from?
I’d agree that nobody has sympathised with the Nazis, but what do you think is the right-wing motivation for claiming (against virtually every historian/expert in the world) that the Nazis weren’t right wing?
I think politics is never a straight line, with everything fitting neatly into boxes.
Where we are today in society is million miles away from the 1930's - 1940's, and when you call politics right wing today, they would not have been recognised back then as such.
If you take hitler and his intentions, and take hitler his actions you have 2 very different outcomes, leading possibly to different conclusions. However, there is no doubt that he was an evil this planet should never have had to suffer.
And yet some conservative politicians of the time sought to side with Hitler as he rose to prominence, including from the U.K and USA.
"The world was very different then, the rich were everything you hate, and mostly for good reason back then. Technological advancements at the time gave us the records that would show the devastation and evil caused. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? In a how far right is X comparison: Who was more right wing hitler or Mussolini? Both were outright fascists. It’s not a pissing contest. There must be scale?? Where would Thatcher and Sunak sit? They are referred too as right wing today They’re not referred to as fascists, though. How right wing are the tory party? Quite. The Overton window has shifted so far that even some (thinking) people who voted Thatcher don't vote Tory now yet their ideology hasn't changed. Also, the Tories a couple of years ago lifted actual BNP policies as theirs, so yanno. The world has seen a shift towards the right as capitalism goes into it's death throes and needs fascism to prop it up. Anyway, broadly speaking, Nazism being alright 'a bit' isn't up for discussion, but thanks to this post for alerting me to massive red flag people I've now blocked. Imagine being on a public site and outing yourself as a Nazi sympathiser in any remote way. I hope all the target audience see this and act accordingly "Just to add to this point (I missed it). I don’t see anyone sympathising or supporting the Nazis. We have had a (sometimes heated) debate about left vs right, socialist vs fascist but I don’t see anyone saying the Nazis were good/right. What is interesting is that those who are most strongly arguing the Nazis were left/socialist are those who appear to hold centre-right to right wing views. That says to me they want to disassociate their own views from having any proximity to Nazism and Fascism. However, as far as I can tell, nobody on here is publicly declaring far right views! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? In a how far right is X comparison: Who was more right wing hitler or Mussolini? Both were outright fascists. It’s not a pissing contest. There must be scale?? Where would Thatcher and Sunak sit? They are referred too as right wing today They’re not referred to as fascists, though. How right wing are the tory party? Quite. The Overton window has shifted so far that even some (thinking) people who voted Thatcher don't vote Tory now yet their ideology hasn't changed. Also, the Tories a couple of years ago lifted actual BNP policies as theirs, so yanno. The world has seen a shift towards the right as capitalism goes into it's death throes and needs fascism to prop it up. Anyway, broadly speaking, Nazism being alright 'a bit' isn't up for discussion, but thanks to this post for alerting me to massive red flag people I've now blocked. Imagine being on a public site and outing yourself as a Nazi sympathiser in any remote way. I hope all the target audience see this and act accordingly
Not one person on this thread has sympathised with hitler or the nazi's. Where did you get that idea from?
I’d agree that nobody has sympathised with the Nazis, but what do you think is the right-wing motivation for claiming (against virtually every historian/expert in the world) that the Nazis weren’t right wing?
I think politics is never a straight line, with everything fitting neatly into boxes.
Where we are today in society is million miles away from the 1930's - 1940's, and when you call politics right wing today, they would not have been recognised back then as such.
If you take hitler and his intentions, and take hitler his actions you have 2 very different outcomes, leading possibly to different conclusions. However, there is no doubt that he was an evil this planet should never have had to suffer.
And yet some conservative politicians of the time sought to side with Hitler as he rose to prominence, including from the U.K and USA.
The world was very different then, the rich were everything you hate, and mostly for good reason back then. Technological advancements at the time gave us the records that would show the devastation and evil caused. "The world was not so different that Hitler and the Nazis can now be referred to as left wing. Unless you’re arguing that the Overton window has shifted so far to the right - which is the exact opposite of what some on this forum claim. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? In a how far right is X comparison: Who was more right wing hitler or Mussolini? Both were outright fascists. It’s not a pissing contest. There must be scale?? Where would Thatcher and Sunak sit? They are referred too as right wing today They’re not referred to as fascists, though. How right wing are the tory party? Quite. The Overton window has shifted so far that even some (thinking) people who voted Thatcher don't vote Tory now yet their ideology hasn't changed. Also, the Tories a couple of years ago lifted actual BNP policies as theirs, so yanno. The world has seen a shift towards the right as capitalism goes into it's death throes and needs fascism to prop it up. Anyway, broadly speaking, Nazism being alright 'a bit' isn't up for discussion, but thanks to this post for alerting me to massive red flag people I've now blocked. Imagine being on a public site and outing yourself as a Nazi sympathiser in any remote way. I hope all the target audience see this and act accordingly
Not one person on this thread has sympathised with hitler or the nazi's. Where did you get that idea from?
I’d agree that nobody has sympathised with the Nazis, but what do you think is the right-wing motivation for claiming (against virtually every historian/expert in the world) that the Nazis weren’t right wing?
I think politics is never a straight line, with everything fitting neatly into boxes.
Where we are today in society is million miles away from the 1930's - 1940's, and when you call politics right wing today, they would not have been recognised back then as such.
If you take hitler and his intentions, and take hitler his actions you have 2 very different outcomes, leading possibly to different conclusions. However, there is no doubt that he was an evil this planet should never have had to suffer.
And yet some conservative politicians of the time sought to side with Hitler as he rose to prominence, including from the U.K and USA.
The world was very different then, the rich were everything you hate, and mostly for good reason back then. Technological advancements at the time gave us the records that would show the devastation and evil caused.
The world was not so different that Hitler and the Nazis can now be referred to as left wing. Unless you’re arguing that the Overton window has shifted so far to the right - which is the exact opposite of what some on this forum claim. "My point was nothing to do with Hitler, my point was all about how people today cry how right wing the tories are, when they are pretty much middle of the road as are the labour party. You do it all the time and it is what makes you seem very left of left. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? In a how far right is X comparison: Who was more right wing hitler or Mussolini? Both were outright fascists. It’s not a pissing contest. There must be scale?? Where would Thatcher and Sunak sit? They are referred too as right wing today They’re not referred to as fascists, though. How right wing are the tory party? Quite. The Overton window has shifted so far that even some (thinking) people who voted Thatcher don't vote Tory now yet their ideology hasn't changed. Also, the Tories a couple of years ago lifted actual BNP policies as theirs, so yanno. The world has seen a shift towards the right as capitalism goes into it's death throes and needs fascism to prop it up. Anyway, broadly speaking, Nazism being alright 'a bit' isn't up for discussion, but thanks to this post for alerting me to massive red flag people I've now blocked. Imagine being on a public site and outing yourself as a Nazi sympathiser in any remote way. I hope all the target audience see this and act accordingly
Not one person on this thread has sympathised with hitler or the nazi's. Where did you get that idea from?
I’d agree that nobody has sympathised with the Nazis, but what do you think is the right-wing motivation for claiming (against virtually every historian/expert in the world) that the Nazis weren’t right wing?
I think politics is never a straight line, with everything fitting neatly into boxes.
Where we are today in society is million miles away from the 1930's - 1940's, and when you call politics right wing today, they would not have been recognised back then as such.
If you take hitler and his intentions, and take hitler his actions you have 2 very different outcomes, leading possibly to different conclusions. However, there is no doubt that he was an evil this planet should never have had to suffer.
And yet some conservative politicians of the time sought to side with Hitler as he rose to prominence, including from the U.K and USA.
The world was very different then, the rich were everything you hate, and mostly for good reason back then. Technological advancements at the time gave us the records that would show the devastation and evil caused.
The world was not so different that Hitler and the Nazis can now be referred to as left wing. Unless you’re arguing that the Overton window has shifted so far to the right - which is the exact opposite of what some on this forum claim.
My point was nothing to do with Hitler, my point was all about how people today cry how right wing the tories are, when they are pretty much middle of the road as are the labour party.
You do it all the time and it is what makes you seem very left of left. "Which is nothing to do with asking why some people on the right want to claim that the Nazis weren’t right-wing. It’s a valid question - why deny the obvious? I’m proudly left wing, but I wouldn’t attempt to claim that Stalin was a product of the right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It all comes back to the point I have made since the beginning. EVERYTHING the Nazis did (ergo Hitler) was subservient to militarisation. So we can agree then that none of the Nazis actions can be taken as capitalist or socialist, left-wing or right-wing, because it was all about militarisation. Is that a reasonable statement? Well on becoming Fuhrer Hitler said that "the future of Germany depends exclusively and only on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht. All other tasks must cede precedence to the task of rearmament." So I can see why you would say that and would be interested to read your argument in support of that. I wouldn’t because there are other characteristics of Nazism that correlate directly with Fascism. According to Umberto Eco (well worth looking up) there are 14 signs of fascism: 1. The cult of tradition. This is the belief that the truth is already known once and for all. Fascists believe there is no need to advance in learning. 2. The rejection of modernism. Fascists reject the Enlightenment and its evidence-based rationality. 3. The cult of action for action’s sake. Fascist leaders act impulsively, without thinking or planning ahead. 4. No analytical criticism. Fascists ignore nuance and see any disagreement as treasonous. 5. Fear of difference. Fascists fear diversity. Thus they are racist by definition. 6. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. An economically frustrated and/or politically marginalized middle class is easy to stir to anger. 7. Obsession with a plot. Because the followers must be made to feel besieged, an internal “enemy” is provided: Immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks. (Historically the Jews were often made to be “the enemy.”) 8. Anti-elitism. The followers are made to feel humiliated by the wealth and strength of the educated “elite.” This is used to create resentment. 9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. Fascists believe that life is permanent warfare. Therefore a desire for peace is treasonous. 10. Contempt for the weak. A fascist leader despises his underlings, who in turn despise those under them. They all either mock or ignore the poor, the sick, and the disabled. 11. The cult of heroism. The Fascist is eager to die a hero’s death. In his impatience, he frequently sends other people to their deaths. 12. Machismo. Fascists show disdain for women, disregard for chastity, and condemnation of homosexuality. 13. Selective populism. Under fascism, the “voice of the people” is not the democratic majority, but only the voices of those who support the leader. 14. Ur-fascism speaks Newspeak. Just as in Orwell’s 1984, Fascists use an impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax to limit complex and critical reasoning. And this is precisely what I mean when I say (historical) context matters. Morley has repeatedly focused on a selection of economic policies in isolation from context, despite me constantly saying that doesn’t work. Without doubt some policies of the Nazis can be seen in isolation as having socialist characteristics, but it is the collective, the sum not the parts, that defines whether they can be viewed as left or right, socialist or fascist. As I said in the other thread, there are a list of policies that were enacted under the Johnson govt that in isolation could be argued are socialist. Would anyone really argue Johnson and the Tories were socialists? " A number of those 14 points could also be attributed to communism. Maybe, just maybe, there is no concrete definition and we all see these words through different lenses. Does that make any one of us 'right'? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It all comes back to the point I have made since the beginning. EVERYTHING the Nazis did (ergo Hitler) was subservient to militarisation. So we can agree then that none of the Nazis actions can be taken as capitalist or socialist, left-wing or right-wing, because it was all about militarisation. Is that a reasonable statement? Well on becoming Fuhrer Hitler said that "the future of Germany depends exclusively and only on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht. All other tasks must cede precedence to the task of rearmament." So I can see why you would say that and would be interested to read your argument in support of that. I wouldn’t because there are other characteristics of Nazism that correlate directly with Fascism. According to Umberto Eco (well worth looking up) there are 14 signs of fascism: 1. The cult of tradition. This is the belief that the truth is already known once and for all. Fascists believe there is no need to advance in learning. 2. The rejection of modernism. Fascists reject the Enlightenment and its evidence-based rationality. 3. The cult of action for action’s sake. Fascist leaders act impulsively, without thinking or planning ahead. 4. No analytical criticism. Fascists ignore nuance and see any disagreement as treasonous. 5. Fear of difference. Fascists fear diversity. Thus they are racist by definition. 6. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. An economically frustrated and/or politically marginalized middle class is easy to stir to anger. 7. Obsession with a plot. Because the followers must be made to feel besieged, an internal “enemy” is provided: Immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks. (Historically the Jews were often made to be “the enemy.”) 8. Anti-elitism. The followers are made to feel humiliated by the wealth and strength of the educated “elite.” This is used to create resentment. 9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. Fascists believe that life is permanent warfare. Therefore a desire for peace is treasonous. 10. Contempt for the weak. A fascist leader despises his underlings, who in turn despise those under them. They all either mock or ignore the poor, the sick, and the disabled. 11. The cult of heroism. The Fascist is eager to die a hero’s death. In his impatience, he frequently sends other people to their deaths. 12. Machismo. Fascists show disdain for women, disregard for chastity, and condemnation of homosexuality. 13. Selective populism. Under fascism, the “voice of the people” is not the democratic majority, but only the voices of those who support the leader. 14. Ur-fascism speaks Newspeak. Just as in Orwell’s 1984, Fascists use an impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax to limit complex and critical reasoning. And this is precisely what I mean when I say (historical) context matters. Morley has repeatedly focused on a selection of economic policies in isolation from context, despite me constantly saying that doesn’t work. Without doubt some policies of the Nazis can be seen in isolation as having socialist characteristics, but it is the collective, the sum not the parts, that defines whether they can be viewed as left or right, socialist or fascist. As I said in the other thread, there are a list of policies that were enacted under the Johnson govt that in isolation could be argued are socialist. Would anyone really argue Johnson and the Tories were socialists? A number of those 14 points could also be attributed to communism. Maybe, just maybe, there is no concrete definition and we all see these words through different lenses. Does that make any one of us 'right'?" This is why the simple political spectrum doesn’t work, but the political compass is more reliable. Totalitarianism can be left or right. As can liberalism. But the Nazis were undeniably on the right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It all comes back to the point I have made since the beginning. EVERYTHING the Nazis did (ergo Hitler) was subservient to militarisation. So we can agree then that none of the Nazis actions can be taken as capitalist or socialist, left-wing or right-wing, because it was all about militarisation. Is that a reasonable statement? Well on becoming Fuhrer Hitler said that "the future of Germany depends exclusively and only on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht. All other tasks must cede precedence to the task of rearmament." So I can see why you would say that and would be interested to read your argument in support of that. I wouldn’t because there are other characteristics of Nazism that correlate directly with Fascism. According to Umberto Eco (well worth looking up) there are 14 signs of fascism: 1. The cult of tradition. This is the belief that the truth is already known once and for all. Fascists believe there is no need to advance in learning. 2. The rejection of modernism. Fascists reject the Enlightenment and its evidence-based rationality. 3. The cult of action for action’s sake. Fascist leaders act impulsively, without thinking or planning ahead. 4. No analytical criticism. Fascists ignore nuance and see any disagreement as treasonous. 5. Fear of difference. Fascists fear diversity. Thus they are racist by definition. 6. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. An economically frustrated and/or politically marginalized middle class is easy to stir to anger. 7. Obsession with a plot. Because the followers must be made to feel besieged, an internal “enemy” is provided: Immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks. (Historically the Jews were often made to be “the enemy.”) 8. Anti-elitism. The followers are made to feel humiliated by the wealth and strength of the educated “elite.” This is used to create resentment. 9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. Fascists believe that life is permanent warfare. Therefore a desire for peace is treasonous. 10. Contempt for the weak. A fascist leader despises his underlings, who in turn despise those under them. They all either mock or ignore the poor, the sick, and the disabled. 11. The cult of heroism. The Fascist is eager to die a hero’s death. In his impatience, he frequently sends other people to their deaths. 12. Machismo. Fascists show disdain for women, disregard for chastity, and condemnation of homosexuality. 13. Selective populism. Under fascism, the “voice of the people” is not the democratic majority, but only the voices of those who support the leader. 14. Ur-fascism speaks Newspeak. Just as in Orwell’s 1984, Fascists use an impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax to limit complex and critical reasoning. And this is precisely what I mean when I say (historical) context matters. Morley has repeatedly focused on a selection of economic policies in isolation from context, despite me constantly saying that doesn’t work. Without doubt some policies of the Nazis can be seen in isolation as having socialist characteristics, but it is the collective, the sum not the parts, that defines whether they can be viewed as left or right, socialist or fascist. As I said in the other thread, there are a list of policies that were enacted under the Johnson govt that in isolation could be argued are socialist. Would anyone really argue Johnson and the Tories were socialists? A number of those 14 points could also be attributed to communism. Maybe, just maybe, there is no concrete definition and we all see these words through different lenses. Does that make any one of us 'right'? This is why the simple political spectrum doesn’t work, but the political compass is more reliable. Totalitarianism can be left or right. As can liberalism. But the Nazis were undeniably on the right. " According to the political spectrum, Hitler sat as a slightly-right authoritatian. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It all comes back to the point I have made since the beginning. EVERYTHING the Nazis did (ergo Hitler) was subservient to militarisation. So we can agree then that none of the Nazis actions can be taken as capitalist or socialist, left-wing or right-wing, because it was all about militarisation. Is that a reasonable statement? Well on becoming Fuhrer Hitler said that "the future of Germany depends exclusively and only on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht. All other tasks must cede precedence to the task of rearmament." So I can see why you would say that and would be interested to read your argument in support of that. I wouldn’t because there are other characteristics of Nazism that correlate directly with Fascism. According to Umberto Eco (well worth looking up) there are 14 signs of fascism: 1. The cult of tradition. This is the belief that the truth is already known once and for all. Fascists believe there is no need to advance in learning. 2. The rejection of modernism. Fascists reject the Enlightenment and its evidence-based rationality. 3. The cult of action for action’s sake. Fascist leaders act impulsively, without thinking or planning ahead. 4. No analytical criticism. Fascists ignore nuance and see any disagreement as treasonous. 5. Fear of difference. Fascists fear diversity. Thus they are racist by definition. 6. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. An economically frustrated and/or politically marginalized middle class is easy to stir to anger. 7. Obsession with a plot. Because the followers must be made to feel besieged, an internal “enemy” is provided: Immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks. (Historically the Jews were often made to be “the enemy.”) 8. Anti-elitism. The followers are made to feel humiliated by the wealth and strength of the educated “elite.” This is used to create resentment. 9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. Fascists believe that life is permanent warfare. Therefore a desire for peace is treasonous. 10. Contempt for the weak. A fascist leader despises his underlings, who in turn despise those under them. They all either mock or ignore the poor, the sick, and the disabled. 11. The cult of heroism. The Fascist is eager to die a hero’s death. In his impatience, he frequently sends other people to their deaths. 12. Machismo. Fascists show disdain for women, disregard for chastity, and condemnation of homosexuality. 13. Selective populism. Under fascism, the “voice of the people” is not the democratic majority, but only the voices of those who support the leader. 14. Ur-fascism speaks Newspeak. Just as in Orwell’s 1984, Fascists use an impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax to limit complex and critical reasoning. And this is precisely what I mean when I say (historical) context matters. Morley has repeatedly focused on a selection of economic policies in isolation from context, despite me constantly saying that doesn’t work. Without doubt some policies of the Nazis can be seen in isolation as having socialist characteristics, but it is the collective, the sum not the parts, that defines whether they can be viewed as left or right, socialist or fascist. As I said in the other thread, there are a list of policies that were enacted under the Johnson govt that in isolation could be argued are socialist. Would anyone really argue Johnson and the Tories were socialists? A number of those 14 points could also be attributed to communism. Maybe, just maybe, there is no concrete definition and we all see these words through different lenses. Does that make any one of us 'right'? This is why the simple political spectrum doesn’t work, but the political compass is more reliable. Totalitarianism can be left or right. As can liberalism. But the Nazis were undeniably on the right. According to the political spectrum, Hitler sat as a slightly-right authoritatian." Don’t tell the OP that  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It all comes back to the point I have made since the beginning. EVERYTHING the Nazis did (ergo Hitler) was subservient to militarisation. So we can agree then that none of the Nazis actions can be taken as capitalist or socialist, left-wing or right-wing, because it was all about militarisation. Is that a reasonable statement? Well on becoming Fuhrer Hitler said that "the future of Germany depends exclusively and only on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht. All other tasks must cede precedence to the task of rearmament." So I can see why you would say that and would be interested to read your argument in support of that. I wouldn’t because there are other characteristics of Nazism that correlate directly with Fascism. According to Umberto Eco (well worth looking up) there are 14 signs of fascism: 1. The cult of tradition. This is the belief that the truth is already known once and for all. Fascists believe there is no need to advance in learning. 2. The rejection of modernism. Fascists reject the Enlightenment and its evidence-based rationality. 3. The cult of action for action’s sake. Fascist leaders act impulsively, without thinking or planning ahead. 4. No analytical criticism. Fascists ignore nuance and see any disagreement as treasonous. 5. Fear of difference. Fascists fear diversity. Thus they are racist by definition. 6. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. An economically frustrated and/or politically marginalized middle class is easy to stir to anger. 7. Obsession with a plot. Because the followers must be made to feel besieged, an internal “enemy” is provided: Immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks. (Historically the Jews were often made to be “the enemy.”) 8. Anti-elitism. The followers are made to feel humiliated by the wealth and strength of the educated “elite.” This is used to create resentment. 9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. Fascists believe that life is permanent warfare. Therefore a desire for peace is treasonous. 10. Contempt for the weak. A fascist leader despises his underlings, who in turn despise those under them. They all either mock or ignore the poor, the sick, and the disabled. 11. The cult of heroism. The Fascist is eager to die a hero’s death. In his impatience, he frequently sends other people to their deaths. 12. Machismo. Fascists show disdain for women, disregard for chastity, and condemnation of homosexuality. 13. Selective populism. Under fascism, the “voice of the people” is not the democratic majority, but only the voices of those who support the leader. 14. Ur-fascism speaks Newspeak. Just as in Orwell’s 1984, Fascists use an impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax to limit complex and critical reasoning. And this is precisely what I mean when I say (historical) context matters. Morley has repeatedly focused on a selection of economic policies in isolation from context, despite me constantly saying that doesn’t work. Without doubt some policies of the Nazis can be seen in isolation as having socialist characteristics, but it is the collective, the sum not the parts, that defines whether they can be viewed as left or right, socialist or fascist. As I said in the other thread, there are a list of policies that were enacted under the Johnson govt that in isolation could be argued are socialist. Would anyone really argue Johnson and the Tories were socialists? A number of those 14 points could also be attributed to communism. Maybe, just maybe, there is no concrete definition and we all see these words through different lenses. Does that make any one of us 'right'? This is why the simple political spectrum doesn’t work, but the political compass is more reliable. Totalitarianism can be left or right. As can liberalism. But the Nazis were undeniably on the right. According to the political spectrum, Hitler sat as a slightly-right authoritatian. Don’t tell the OP that "He'll know when he reads this. According to them, Hitler was much much closer to centre than your 'undeniable' right. Further right than I, but centre nonetheless. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It all comes back to the point I have made since the beginning. EVERYTHING the Nazis did (ergo Hitler) was subservient to militarisation. So we can agree then that none of the Nazis actions can be taken as capitalist or socialist, left-wing or right-wing, because it was all about militarisation. Is that a reasonable statement? Well on becoming Fuhrer Hitler said that "the future of Germany depends exclusively and only on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht. All other tasks must cede precedence to the task of rearmament." So I can see why you would say that and would be interested to read your argument in support of that. I wouldn’t because there are other characteristics of Nazism that correlate directly with Fascism. According to Umberto Eco (well worth looking up) there are 14 signs of fascism: 1. The cult of tradition. This is the belief that the truth is already known once and for all. Fascists believe there is no need to advance in learning. 2. The rejection of modernism. Fascists reject the Enlightenment and its evidence-based rationality. 3. The cult of action for action’s sake. Fascist leaders act impulsively, without thinking or planning ahead. 4. No analytical criticism. Fascists ignore nuance and see any disagreement as treasonous. 5. Fear of difference. Fascists fear diversity. Thus they are racist by definition. 6. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. An economically frustrated and/or politically marginalized middle class is easy to stir to anger. 7. Obsession with a plot. Because the followers must be made to feel besieged, an internal “enemy” is provided: Immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks. (Historically the Jews were often made to be “the enemy.”) 8. Anti-elitism. The followers are made to feel humiliated by the wealth and strength of the educated “elite.” This is used to create resentment. 9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. Fascists believe that life is permanent warfare. Therefore a desire for peace is treasonous. 10. Contempt for the weak. A fascist leader despises his underlings, who in turn despise those under them. They all either mock or ignore the poor, the sick, and the disabled. 11. The cult of heroism. The Fascist is eager to die a hero’s death. In his impatience, he frequently sends other people to their deaths. 12. Machismo. Fascists show disdain for women, disregard for chastity, and condemnation of homosexuality. 13. Selective populism. Under fascism, the “voice of the people” is not the democratic majority, but only the voices of those who support the leader. 14. Ur-fascism speaks Newspeak. Just as in Orwell’s 1984, Fascists use an impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax to limit complex and critical reasoning. And this is precisely what I mean when I say (historical) context matters. Morley has repeatedly focused on a selection of economic policies in isolation from context, despite me constantly saying that doesn’t work. Without doubt some policies of the Nazis can be seen in isolation as having socialist characteristics, but it is the collective, the sum not the parts, that defines whether they can be viewed as left or right, socialist or fascist. As I said in the other thread, there are a list of policies that were enacted under the Johnson govt that in isolation could be argued are socialist. Would anyone really argue Johnson and the Tories were socialists? A number of those 14 points could also be attributed to communism. Maybe, just maybe, there is no concrete definition and we all see these words through different lenses. Does that make any one of us 'right'? This is why the simple political spectrum doesn’t work, but the political compass is more reliable. Totalitarianism can be left or right. As can liberalism. But the Nazis were undeniably on the right. According to the political spectrum, Hitler sat as a slightly-right authoritatian. Don’t tell the OP that
He'll know when he reads this.
According to them, Hitler was much much closer to centre than your 'undeniable' right. Further right than I, but centre nonetheless."Not denying or arguing but would love to see the workings that delivered that outcome. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It all comes back to the point I have made since the beginning. EVERYTHING the Nazis did (ergo Hitler) was subservient to militarisation. So we can agree then that none of the Nazis actions can be taken as capitalist or socialist, left-wing or right-wing, because it was all about militarisation. Is that a reasonable statement? Well on becoming Fuhrer Hitler said that "the future of Germany depends exclusively and only on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht. All other tasks must cede precedence to the task of rearmament." So I can see why you would say that and would be interested to read your argument in support of that. I wouldn’t because there are other characteristics of Nazism that correlate directly with Fascism. According to Umberto Eco (well worth looking up) there are 14 signs of fascism: 1. The cult of tradition. This is the belief that the truth is already known once and for all. Fascists believe there is no need to advance in learning. 2. The rejection of modernism. Fascists reject the Enlightenment and its evidence-based rationality. 3. The cult of action for action’s sake. Fascist leaders act impulsively, without thinking or planning ahead. 4. No analytical criticism. Fascists ignore nuance and see any disagreement as treasonous. 5. Fear of difference. Fascists fear diversity. Thus they are racist by definition. 6. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. An economically frustrated and/or politically marginalized middle class is easy to stir to anger. 7. Obsession with a plot. Because the followers must be made to feel besieged, an internal “enemy” is provided: Immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks. (Historically the Jews were often made to be “the enemy.”) 8. Anti-elitism. The followers are made to feel humiliated by the wealth and strength of the educated “elite.” This is used to create resentment. 9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. Fascists believe that life is permanent warfare. Therefore a desire for peace is treasonous. 10. Contempt for the weak. A fascist leader despises his underlings, who in turn despise those under them. They all either mock or ignore the poor, the sick, and the disabled. 11. The cult of heroism. The Fascist is eager to die a hero’s death. In his impatience, he frequently sends other people to their deaths. 12. Machismo. Fascists show disdain for women, disregard for chastity, and condemnation of homosexuality. 13. Selective populism. Under fascism, the “voice of the people” is not the democratic majority, but only the voices of those who support the leader. 14. Ur-fascism speaks Newspeak. Just as in Orwell’s 1984, Fascists use an impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax to limit complex and critical reasoning. And this is precisely what I mean when I say (historical) context matters. Morley has repeatedly focused on a selection of economic policies in isolation from context, despite me constantly saying that doesn’t work. Without doubt some policies of the Nazis can be seen in isolation as having socialist characteristics, but it is the collective, the sum not the parts, that defines whether they can be viewed as left or right, socialist or fascist. As I said in the other thread, there are a list of policies that were enacted under the Johnson govt that in isolation could be argued are socialist. Would anyone really argue Johnson and the Tories were socialists? A number of those 14 points could also be attributed to communism. Maybe, just maybe, there is no concrete definition and we all see these words through different lenses. Does that make any one of us 'right'? This is why the simple political spectrum doesn’t work, but the political compass is more reliable. Totalitarianism can be left or right. As can liberalism. But the Nazis were undeniably on the right. According to the political spectrum, Hitler sat as a slightly-right authoritatian. Don’t tell the OP that
He'll know when he reads this.
According to them, Hitler was much much closer to centre than your 'undeniable' right. Further right than I, but centre nonetheless.
Not denying or arguing but would love to see the workings that delivered that outcome."I don't think we'll be so lucky. I'm comfortable that those guys know a fuck ton more than I do about politics so I'm good with that, unless there are people here who know more than them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It all comes back to the point I have made since the beginning. EVERYTHING the Nazis did (ergo Hitler) was subservient to militarisation. So we can agree then that none of the Nazis actions can be taken as capitalist or socialist, left-wing or right-wing, because it was all about militarisation. Is that a reasonable statement? Well on becoming Fuhrer Hitler said that "the future of Germany depends exclusively and only on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht. All other tasks must cede precedence to the task of rearmament." So I can see why you would say that and would be interested to read your argument in support of that. I wouldn’t because there are other characteristics of Nazism that correlate directly with Fascism. According to Umberto Eco (well worth looking up) there are 14 signs of fascism: 1. The cult of tradition. This is the belief that the truth is already known once and for all. Fascists believe there is no need to advance in learning. 2. The rejection of modernism. Fascists reject the Enlightenment and its evidence-based rationality. 3. The cult of action for action’s sake. Fascist leaders act impulsively, without thinking or planning ahead. 4. No analytical criticism. Fascists ignore nuance and see any disagreement as treasonous. 5. Fear of difference. Fascists fear diversity. Thus they are racist by definition. 6. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. An economically frustrated and/or politically marginalized middle class is easy to stir to anger. 7. Obsession with a plot. Because the followers must be made to feel besieged, an internal “enemy” is provided: Immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks. (Historically the Jews were often made to be “the enemy.”) 8. Anti-elitism. The followers are made to feel humiliated by the wealth and strength of the educated “elite.” This is used to create resentment. 9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. Fascists believe that life is permanent warfare. Therefore a desire for peace is treasonous. 10. Contempt for the weak. A fascist leader despises his underlings, who in turn despise those under them. They all either mock or ignore the poor, the sick, and the disabled. 11. The cult of heroism. The Fascist is eager to die a hero’s death. In his impatience, he frequently sends other people to their deaths. 12. Machismo. Fascists show disdain for women, disregard for chastity, and condemnation of homosexuality. 13. Selective populism. Under fascism, the “voice of the people” is not the democratic majority, but only the voices of those who support the leader. 14. Ur-fascism speaks Newspeak. Just as in Orwell’s 1984, Fascists use an impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax to limit complex and critical reasoning. And this is precisely what I mean when I say (historical) context matters. Morley has repeatedly focused on a selection of economic policies in isolation from context, despite me constantly saying that doesn’t work. Without doubt some policies of the Nazis can be seen in isolation as having socialist characteristics, but it is the collective, the sum not the parts, that defines whether they can be viewed as left or right, socialist or fascist. As I said in the other thread, there are a list of policies that were enacted under the Johnson govt that in isolation could be argued are socialist. Would anyone really argue Johnson and the Tories were socialists? A number of those 14 points could also be attributed to communism. Maybe, just maybe, there is no concrete definition and we all see these words through different lenses. Does that make any one of us 'right'? This is why the simple political spectrum doesn’t work, but the political compass is more reliable. Totalitarianism can be left or right. As can liberalism. But the Nazis were undeniably on the right. According to the political spectrum, Hitler sat as a slightly-right authoritatian. Don’t tell the OP that
He'll know when he reads this.
According to them, Hitler was much much closer to centre than your 'undeniable' right. Further right than I, but centre nonetheless."But on the right, no? Hitler was undeniably on the right, as anyone with any nous, political or historical knowledge knows. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It all comes back to the point I have made since the beginning. EVERYTHING the Nazis did (ergo Hitler) was subservient to militarisation. So we can agree then that none of the Nazis actions can be taken as capitalist or socialist, left-wing or right-wing, because it was all about militarisation. Is that a reasonable statement? Well on becoming Fuhrer Hitler said that "the future of Germany depends exclusively and only on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht. All other tasks must cede precedence to the task of rearmament." So I can see why you would say that and would be interested to read your argument in support of that. I wouldn’t because there are other characteristics of Nazism that correlate directly with Fascism. According to Umberto Eco (well worth looking up) there are 14 signs of fascism: 1. The cult of tradition. This is the belief that the truth is already known once and for all. Fascists believe there is no need to advance in learning. 2. The rejection of modernism. Fascists reject the Enlightenment and its evidence-based rationality. 3. The cult of action for action’s sake. Fascist leaders act impulsively, without thinking or planning ahead. 4. No analytical criticism. Fascists ignore nuance and see any disagreement as treasonous. 5. Fear of difference. Fascists fear diversity. Thus they are racist by definition. 6. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. An economically frustrated and/or politically marginalized middle class is easy to stir to anger. 7. Obsession with a plot. Because the followers must be made to feel besieged, an internal “enemy” is provided: Immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks. (Historically the Jews were often made to be “the enemy.”) 8. Anti-elitism. The followers are made to feel humiliated by the wealth and strength of the educated “elite.” This is used to create resentment. 9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. Fascists believe that life is permanent warfare. Therefore a desire for peace is treasonous. 10. Contempt for the weak. A fascist leader despises his underlings, who in turn despise those under them. They all either mock or ignore the poor, the sick, and the disabled. 11. The cult of heroism. The Fascist is eager to die a hero’s death. In his impatience, he frequently sends other people to their deaths. 12. Machismo. Fascists show disdain for women, disregard for chastity, and condemnation of homosexuality. 13. Selective populism. Under fascism, the “voice of the people” is not the democratic majority, but only the voices of those who support the leader. 14. Ur-fascism speaks Newspeak. Just as in Orwell’s 1984, Fascists use an impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax to limit complex and critical reasoning. And this is precisely what I mean when I say (historical) context matters. Morley has repeatedly focused on a selection of economic policies in isolation from context, despite me constantly saying that doesn’t work. Without doubt some policies of the Nazis can be seen in isolation as having socialist characteristics, but it is the collective, the sum not the parts, that defines whether they can be viewed as left or right, socialist or fascist. As I said in the other thread, there are a list of policies that were enacted under the Johnson govt that in isolation could be argued are socialist. Would anyone really argue Johnson and the Tories were socialists? A number of those 14 points could also be attributed to communism. Maybe, just maybe, there is no concrete definition and we all see these words through different lenses. Does that make any one of us 'right'? This is why the simple political spectrum doesn’t work, but the political compass is more reliable. Totalitarianism can be left or right. As can liberalism. But the Nazis were undeniably on the right. According to the political spectrum, Hitler sat as a slightly-right authoritatian. Don’t tell the OP that
He'll know when he reads this.
According to them, Hitler was much much closer to centre than your 'undeniable' right. Further right than I, but centre nonetheless.
Not denying or arguing but would love to see the workings that delivered that outcome.
I don't think we'll be so lucky.
I'm comfortable that those guys know a fuck ton more than I do about politics so I'm good with that, unless there are people here who know more than them."Ah ok. Well we discussed before and I think that political compass tool is American made/American focused so for Europeans it skews somewhat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It all comes back to the point I have made since the beginning. EVERYTHING the Nazis did (ergo Hitler) was subservient to militarisation. So we can agree then that none of the Nazis actions can be taken as capitalist or socialist, left-wing or right-wing, because it was all about militarisation. Is that a reasonable statement? Well on becoming Fuhrer Hitler said that "the future of Germany depends exclusively and only on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht. All other tasks must cede precedence to the task of rearmament." So I can see why you would say that and would be interested to read your argument in support of that. I wouldn’t because there are other characteristics of Nazism that correlate directly with Fascism. According to Umberto Eco (well worth looking up) there are 14 signs of fascism: 1. The cult of tradition. This is the belief that the truth is already known once and for all. Fascists believe there is no need to advance in learning. 2. The rejection of modernism. Fascists reject the Enlightenment and its evidence-based rationality. 3. The cult of action for action’s sake. Fascist leaders act impulsively, without thinking or planning ahead. 4. No analytical criticism. Fascists ignore nuance and see any disagreement as treasonous. 5. Fear of difference. Fascists fear diversity. Thus they are racist by definition. 6. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. An economically frustrated and/or politically marginalized middle class is easy to stir to anger. 7. Obsession with a plot. Because the followers must be made to feel besieged, an internal “enemy” is provided: Immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks. (Historically the Jews were often made to be “the enemy.”) 8. Anti-elitism. The followers are made to feel humiliated by the wealth and strength of the educated “elite.” This is used to create resentment. 9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. Fascists believe that life is permanent warfare. Therefore a desire for peace is treasonous. 10. Contempt for the weak. A fascist leader despises his underlings, who in turn despise those under them. They all either mock or ignore the poor, the sick, and the disabled. 11. The cult of heroism. The Fascist is eager to die a hero’s death. In his impatience, he frequently sends other people to their deaths. 12. Machismo. Fascists show disdain for women, disregard for chastity, and condemnation of homosexuality. 13. Selective populism. Under fascism, the “voice of the people” is not the democratic majority, but only the voices of those who support the leader. 14. Ur-fascism speaks Newspeak. Just as in Orwell’s 1984, Fascists use an impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax to limit complex and critical reasoning. And this is precisely what I mean when I say (historical) context matters. Morley has repeatedly focused on a selection of economic policies in isolation from context, despite me constantly saying that doesn’t work. Without doubt some policies of the Nazis can be seen in isolation as having socialist characteristics, but it is the collective, the sum not the parts, that defines whether they can be viewed as left or right, socialist or fascist. As I said in the other thread, there are a list of policies that were enacted under the Johnson govt that in isolation could be argued are socialist. Would anyone really argue Johnson and the Tories were socialists? A number of those 14 points could also be attributed to communism. Maybe, just maybe, there is no concrete definition and we all see these words through different lenses. Does that make any one of us 'right'? This is why the simple political spectrum doesn’t work, but the political compass is more reliable. Totalitarianism can be left or right. As can liberalism. But the Nazis were undeniably on the right. According to the political spectrum, Hitler sat as a slightly-right authoritatian. Don’t tell the OP that
He'll know when he reads this.
According to them, Hitler was much much closer to centre than your 'undeniable' right. Further right than I, but centre nonetheless.
But on the right, no?
Hitler was undeniably on the right, as anyone with any nous, political or historical knowledge knows."Ever so slightly. I don't think that's the same as 'undeniable'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It all comes back to the point I have made since the beginning. EVERYTHING the Nazis did (ergo Hitler) was subservient to militarisation. So we can agree then that none of the Nazis actions can be taken as capitalist or socialist, left-wing or right-wing, because it was all about militarisation. Is that a reasonable statement? Well on becoming Fuhrer Hitler said that "the future of Germany depends exclusively and only on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht. All other tasks must cede precedence to the task of rearmament." So I can see why you would say that and would be interested to read your argument in support of that. I wouldn’t because there are other characteristics of Nazism that correlate directly with Fascism. According to Umberto Eco (well worth looking up) there are 14 signs of fascism: 1. The cult of tradition. This is the belief that the truth is already known once and for all. Fascists believe there is no need to advance in learning. 2. The rejection of modernism. Fascists reject the Enlightenment and its evidence-based rationality. 3. The cult of action for action’s sake. Fascist leaders act impulsively, without thinking or planning ahead. 4. No analytical criticism. Fascists ignore nuance and see any disagreement as treasonous. 5. Fear of difference. Fascists fear diversity. Thus they are racist by definition. 6. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. An economically frustrated and/or politically marginalized middle class is easy to stir to anger. 7. Obsession with a plot. Because the followers must be made to feel besieged, an internal “enemy” is provided: Immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks. (Historically the Jews were often made to be “the enemy.”) 8. Anti-elitism. The followers are made to feel humiliated by the wealth and strength of the educated “elite.” This is used to create resentment. 9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. Fascists believe that life is permanent warfare. Therefore a desire for peace is treasonous. 10. Contempt for the weak. A fascist leader despises his underlings, who in turn despise those under them. They all either mock or ignore the poor, the sick, and the disabled. 11. The cult of heroism. The Fascist is eager to die a hero’s death. In his impatience, he frequently sends other people to their deaths. 12. Machismo. Fascists show disdain for women, disregard for chastity, and condemnation of homosexuality. 13. Selective populism. Under fascism, the “voice of the people” is not the democratic majority, but only the voices of those who support the leader. 14. Ur-fascism speaks Newspeak. Just as in Orwell’s 1984, Fascists use an impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax to limit complex and critical reasoning. And this is precisely what I mean when I say (historical) context matters. Morley has repeatedly focused on a selection of economic policies in isolation from context, despite me constantly saying that doesn’t work. Without doubt some policies of the Nazis can be seen in isolation as having socialist characteristics, but it is the collective, the sum not the parts, that defines whether they can be viewed as left or right, socialist or fascist. As I said in the other thread, there are a list of policies that were enacted under the Johnson govt that in isolation could be argued are socialist. Would anyone really argue Johnson and the Tories were socialists? A number of those 14 points could also be attributed to communism. Maybe, just maybe, there is no concrete definition and we all see these words through different lenses. Does that make any one of us 'right'? This is why the simple political spectrum doesn’t work, but the political compass is more reliable. Totalitarianism can be left or right. As can liberalism. But the Nazis were undeniably on the right. According to the political spectrum, Hitler sat as a slightly-right authoritatian. Don’t tell the OP that
He'll know when he reads this.
According to them, Hitler was much much closer to centre than your 'undeniable' right. Further right than I, but centre nonetheless.
Not denying or arguing but would love to see the workings that delivered that outcome.
I don't think we'll be so lucky.
I'm comfortable that those guys know a fuck ton more than I do about politics so I'm good with that, unless there are people here who know more than them.
Ah ok. Well we discussed before and I think that political compass tool is American made/American focused so for Europeans it skews somewhat."I agree it skews it for today. Can the same be said for historically? I don't know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It all comes back to the point I have made since the beginning. EVERYTHING the Nazis did (ergo Hitler) was subservient to militarisation. So we can agree then that none of the Nazis actions can be taken as capitalist or socialist, left-wing or right-wing, because it was all about militarisation. Is that a reasonable statement? Well on becoming Fuhrer Hitler said that "the future of Germany depends exclusively and only on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht. All other tasks must cede precedence to the task of rearmament." So I can see why you would say that and would be interested to read your argument in support of that. I wouldn’t because there are other characteristics of Nazism that correlate directly with Fascism. According to Umberto Eco (well worth looking up) there are 14 signs of fascism: 1. The cult of tradition. This is the belief that the truth is already known once and for all. Fascists believe there is no need to advance in learning. 2. The rejection of modernism. Fascists reject the Enlightenment and its evidence-based rationality. 3. The cult of action for action’s sake. Fascist leaders act impulsively, without thinking or planning ahead. 4. No analytical criticism. Fascists ignore nuance and see any disagreement as treasonous. 5. Fear of difference. Fascists fear diversity. Thus they are racist by definition. 6. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. An economically frustrated and/or politically marginalized middle class is easy to stir to anger. 7. Obsession with a plot. Because the followers must be made to feel besieged, an internal “enemy” is provided: Immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks. (Historically the Jews were often made to be “the enemy.”) 8. Anti-elitism. The followers are made to feel humiliated by the wealth and strength of the educated “elite.” This is used to create resentment. 9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. Fascists believe that life is permanent warfare. Therefore a desire for peace is treasonous. 10. Contempt for the weak. A fascist leader despises his underlings, who in turn despise those under them. They all either mock or ignore the poor, the sick, and the disabled. 11. The cult of heroism. The Fascist is eager to die a hero’s death. In his impatience, he frequently sends other people to their deaths. 12. Machismo. Fascists show disdain for women, disregard for chastity, and condemnation of homosexuality. 13. Selective populism. Under fascism, the “voice of the people” is not the democratic majority, but only the voices of those who support the leader. 14. Ur-fascism speaks Newspeak. Just as in Orwell’s 1984, Fascists use an impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax to limit complex and critical reasoning. And this is precisely what I mean when I say (historical) context matters. Morley has repeatedly focused on a selection of economic policies in isolation from context, despite me constantly saying that doesn’t work. Without doubt some policies of the Nazis can be seen in isolation as having socialist characteristics, but it is the collective, the sum not the parts, that defines whether they can be viewed as left or right, socialist or fascist. As I said in the other thread, there are a list of policies that were enacted under the Johnson govt that in isolation could be argued are socialist. Would anyone really argue Johnson and the Tories were socialists? A number of those 14 points could also be attributed to communism. Maybe, just maybe, there is no concrete definition and we all see these words through different lenses. Does that make any one of us 'right'?" You COULD ascribe SOME of those points to extreme Communism (Stalin, Mao etc) but ALL of them apply to Fascism and correlate to Nazism. For those who are genuinely interested Joseph Goebbels published a pamphlet in 1927 titled The Nazi-Sozi which gave points of how National Socialism differed from Marxism/Socialism. And as I gave already posted... The Nazis claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations because of its intention to dissolve private property, its support of class conflict, its aggression against the middle class, its hostility towards small business and its atheism. Nazism rejected class conflict-based socialism and economic egalitarianism, favouring instead a stratified economy with social classes based on merit and talent, retaining private property and the creation of national solidarity that transcends class distinction. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It all comes back to the point I have made since the beginning. EVERYTHING the Nazis did (ergo Hitler) was subservient to militarisation. So we can agree then that none of the Nazis actions can be taken as capitalist or socialist, left-wing or right-wing, because it was all about militarisation. Is that a reasonable statement? Well on becoming Fuhrer Hitler said that "the future of Germany depends exclusively and only on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht. All other tasks must cede precedence to the task of rearmament." So I can see why you would say that and would be interested to read your argument in support of that. I wouldn’t because there are other characteristics of Nazism that correlate directly with Fascism. According to Umberto Eco (well worth looking up) there are 14 signs of fascism: 1. The cult of tradition. This is the belief that the truth is already known once and for all. Fascists believe there is no need to advance in learning. 2. The rejection of modernism. Fascists reject the Enlightenment and its evidence-based rationality. 3. The cult of action for action’s sake. Fascist leaders act impulsively, without thinking or planning ahead. 4. No analytical criticism. Fascists ignore nuance and see any disagreement as treasonous. 5. Fear of difference. Fascists fear diversity. Thus they are racist by definition. 6. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. An economically frustrated and/or politically marginalized middle class is easy to stir to anger. 7. Obsession with a plot. Because the followers must be made to feel besieged, an internal “enemy” is provided: Immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks. (Historically the Jews were often made to be “the enemy.”) 8. Anti-elitism. The followers are made to feel humiliated by the wealth and strength of the educated “elite.” This is used to create resentment. 9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. Fascists believe that life is permanent warfare. Therefore a desire for peace is treasonous. 10. Contempt for the weak. A fascist leader despises his underlings, who in turn despise those under them. They all either mock or ignore the poor, the sick, and the disabled. 11. The cult of heroism. The Fascist is eager to die a hero’s death. In his impatience, he frequently sends other people to their deaths. 12. Machismo. Fascists show disdain for women, disregard for chastity, and condemnation of homosexuality. 13. Selective populism. Under fascism, the “voice of the people” is not the democratic majority, but only the voices of those who support the leader. 14. Ur-fascism speaks Newspeak. Just as in Orwell’s 1984, Fascists use an impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax to limit complex and critical reasoning. And this is precisely what I mean when I say (historical) context matters. Morley has repeatedly focused on a selection of economic policies in isolation from context, despite me constantly saying that doesn’t work. Without doubt some policies of the Nazis can be seen in isolation as having socialist characteristics, but it is the collective, the sum not the parts, that defines whether they can be viewed as left or right, socialist or fascist. As I said in the other thread, there are a list of policies that were enacted under the Johnson govt that in isolation could be argued are socialist. Would anyone really argue Johnson and the Tories were socialists? A number of those 14 points could also be attributed to communism. Maybe, just maybe, there is no concrete definition and we all see these words through different lenses. Does that make any one of us 'right'? You COULD ascribe SOME of those points to extreme Communism (Stalin, Mao etc) but ALL of them apply to Fascism and correlate to Nazism. For those who are genuinely interested Joseph Goebbels published a pamphlet in 1927 titled The Nazi-Sozi which gave points of how National Socialism differed from Marxism/Socialism. And as I gave already posted... The Nazis claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations because of its intention to dissolve private property, its support of class conflict, its aggression against the middle class, its hostility towards small business and its atheism. Nazism rejected class conflict-based socialism and economic egalitarianism, favouring instead a stratified economy with social classes based on merit and talent, retaining private property and the creation of national solidarity that transcends class distinction." You COULD use CAPS to emphasise your point whilst agreeing with me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It all comes back to the point I have made since the beginning. EVERYTHING the Nazis did (ergo Hitler) was subservient to militarisation. So we can agree then that none of the Nazis actions can be taken as capitalist or socialist, left-wing or right-wing, because it was all about militarisation. Is that a reasonable statement? Well on becoming Fuhrer Hitler said that "the future of Germany depends exclusively and only on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht. All other tasks must cede precedence to the task of rearmament." So I can see why you would say that and would be interested to read your argument in support of that. I wouldn’t because there are other characteristics of Nazism that correlate directly with Fascism. According to Umberto Eco (well worth looking up) there are 14 signs of fascism: 1. The cult of tradition. This is the belief that the truth is already known once and for all. Fascists believe there is no need to advance in learning. 2. The rejection of modernism. Fascists reject the Enlightenment and its evidence-based rationality. 3. The cult of action for action’s sake. Fascist leaders act impulsively, without thinking or planning ahead. 4. No analytical criticism. Fascists ignore nuance and see any disagreement as treasonous. 5. Fear of difference. Fascists fear diversity. Thus they are racist by definition. 6. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. An economically frustrated and/or politically marginalized middle class is easy to stir to anger. 7. Obsession with a plot. Because the followers must be made to feel besieged, an internal “enemy” is provided: Immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks. (Historically the Jews were often made to be “the enemy.”) 8. Anti-elitism. The followers are made to feel humiliated by the wealth and strength of the educated “elite.” This is used to create resentment. 9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. Fascists believe that life is permanent warfare. Therefore a desire for peace is treasonous. 10. Contempt for the weak. A fascist leader despises his underlings, who in turn despise those under them. They all either mock or ignore the poor, the sick, and the disabled. 11. The cult of heroism. The Fascist is eager to die a hero’s death. In his impatience, he frequently sends other people to their deaths. 12. Machismo. Fascists show disdain for women, disregard for chastity, and condemnation of homosexuality. 13. Selective populism. Under fascism, the “voice of the people” is not the democratic majority, but only the voices of those who support the leader. 14. Ur-fascism speaks Newspeak. Just as in Orwell’s 1984, Fascists use an impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax to limit complex and critical reasoning. And this is precisely what I mean when I say (historical) context matters. Morley has repeatedly focused on a selection of economic policies in isolation from context, despite me constantly saying that doesn’t work. Without doubt some policies of the Nazis can be seen in isolation as having socialist characteristics, but it is the collective, the sum not the parts, that defines whether they can be viewed as left or right, socialist or fascist. As I said in the other thread, there are a list of policies that were enacted under the Johnson govt that in isolation could be argued are socialist. Would anyone really argue Johnson and the Tories were socialists? A number of those 14 points could also be attributed to communism. Maybe, just maybe, there is no concrete definition and we all see these words through different lenses. Does that make any one of us 'right'? This is why the simple political spectrum doesn’t work, but the political compass is more reliable. Totalitarianism can be left or right. As can liberalism. But the Nazis were undeniably on the right. According to the political spectrum, Hitler sat as a slightly-right authoritatian. Don’t tell the OP that
He'll know when he reads this.
According to them, Hitler was much much closer to centre than your 'undeniable' right. Further right than I, but centre nonetheless.
But on the right, no?
Hitler was undeniably on the right, as anyone with any nous, political or historical knowledge knows.
Ever so slightly. I don't think that's the same as 'undeniable'."I think when the overwhelmingly vast majority of people, including scholars, authors, historians etc all say he was on the right, it becomes undeniable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It all comes back to the point I have made since the beginning. EVERYTHING the Nazis did (ergo Hitler) was subservient to militarisation. So we can agree then that none of the Nazis actions can be taken as capitalist or socialist, left-wing or right-wing, because it was all about militarisation. Is that a reasonable statement? Well on becoming Fuhrer Hitler said that "the future of Germany depends exclusively and only on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht. All other tasks must cede precedence to the task of rearmament." So I can see why you would say that and would be interested to read your argument in support of that. I wouldn’t because there are other characteristics of Nazism that correlate directly with Fascism. According to Umberto Eco (well worth looking up) there are 14 signs of fascism: 1. The cult of tradition. This is the belief that the truth is already known once and for all. Fascists believe there is no need to advance in learning. 2. The rejection of modernism. Fascists reject the Enlightenment and its evidence-based rationality. 3. The cult of action for action’s sake. Fascist leaders act impulsively, without thinking or planning ahead. 4. No analytical criticism. Fascists ignore nuance and see any disagreement as treasonous. 5. Fear of difference. Fascists fear diversity. Thus they are racist by definition. 6. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. An economically frustrated and/or politically marginalized middle class is easy to stir to anger. 7. Obsession with a plot. Because the followers must be made to feel besieged, an internal “enemy” is provided: Immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks. (Historically the Jews were often made to be “the enemy.”) 8. Anti-elitism. The followers are made to feel humiliated by the wealth and strength of the educated “elite.” This is used to create resentment. 9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. Fascists believe that life is permanent warfare. Therefore a desire for peace is treasonous. 10. Contempt for the weak. A fascist leader despises his underlings, who in turn despise those under them. They all either mock or ignore the poor, the sick, and the disabled. 11. The cult of heroism. The Fascist is eager to die a hero’s death. In his impatience, he frequently sends other people to their deaths. 12. Machismo. Fascists show disdain for women, disregard for chastity, and condemnation of homosexuality. 13. Selective populism. Under fascism, the “voice of the people” is not the democratic majority, but only the voices of those who support the leader. 14. Ur-fascism speaks Newspeak. Just as in Orwell’s 1984, Fascists use an impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax to limit complex and critical reasoning. And this is precisely what I mean when I say (historical) context matters. Morley has repeatedly focused on a selection of economic policies in isolation from context, despite me constantly saying that doesn’t work. Without doubt some policies of the Nazis can be seen in isolation as having socialist characteristics, but it is the collective, the sum not the parts, that defines whether they can be viewed as left or right, socialist or fascist. As I said in the other thread, there are a list of policies that were enacted under the Johnson govt that in isolation could be argued are socialist. Would anyone really argue Johnson and the Tories were socialists? A number of those 14 points could also be attributed to communism. Maybe, just maybe, there is no concrete definition and we all see these words through different lenses. Does that make any one of us 'right'? This is why the simple political spectrum doesn’t work, but the political compass is more reliable. Totalitarianism can be left or right. As can liberalism. But the Nazis were undeniably on the right. According to the political spectrum, Hitler sat as a slightly-right authoritatian. Don’t tell the OP that
He'll know when he reads this.
According to them, Hitler was much much closer to centre than your 'undeniable' right. Further right than I, but centre nonetheless.
But on the right, no?
Hitler was undeniably on the right, as anyone with any nous, political or historical knowledge knows.
Ever so slightly. I don't think that's the same as 'undeniable'.
I think when the overwhelmingly vast majority of people, including scholars, authors, historians etc all say he was on the right, it becomes undeniable."Now your just trying to claim some sort of 'win'. There are plenty who disagree. There are plenty who say he was far right. On a spectrum. Maybe so. On a compass (which you yourself said was a better measure). Not so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Prediction... Morley will now either: A) Completely ignore this thread and then at some point in future on a different thread when he and I lock horns again, he’ll claim he “won” the argument that the Nazis were left wing/socialist. B) He’ll pop in here, drop what he thinks is a hand grenade (but is really just a point that lacks context or anything more than a superficial argument) and then at some point in future on a different thread when he and I lock horns again, he’ll claim he “won” the argument that the Nazis were left wing/socialist." The problem with making predictions like this... it comes across as nothing more than trying to shut down discussion before it even starts. That's not good for anyone or any debate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Prediction... Morley will now either: A) Completely ignore this thread and then at some point in future on a different thread when he and I lock horns again, he’ll claim he “won” the argument that the Nazis were left wing/socialist. B) He’ll pop in here, drop what he thinks is a hand grenade (but is really just a point that lacks context or anything more than a superficial argument) and then at some point in future on a different thread when he and I lock horns again, he’ll claim he “won” the argument that the Nazis were left wing/socialist. The problem with making predictions like this... it comes across as nothing more than trying to shut down discussion before it even starts. That's not good for anyone or any debate. " Or people could actually discuss! In this thread I am seeing some good discussion between me and others with Mr Discretion NotMe FunFella Feisty (you). No rudeness. No willy waving. If someone takes a certain tone in their posts it will invariably illicit the same response back. If someone’s default position on EVERYTHING is “I know more than you” it comes across as “I am superior to you” and that will trigger a style of response and hold a mirror to it. In the other thread I provided a lot of evidence to support my argument. Mr Discretion then accused me of lecturing but subsequently demanded I provide more evidence (without providing any of his own to counter the points, only his opinion). However, on this thread it has been quite civil and a good discussion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Prediction... Morley will now either: A) Completely ignore this thread and then at some point in future on a different thread when he and I lock horns again, he’ll claim he “won” the argument that the Nazis were left wing/socialist. B) He’ll pop in here, drop what he thinks is a hand grenade (but is really just a point that lacks context or anything more than a superficial argument) and then at some point in future on a different thread when he and I lock horns again, he’ll claim he “won” the argument that the Nazis were left wing/socialist. The problem with making predictions like this... it comes across as nothing more than trying to shut down discussion before it even starts. That's not good for anyone or any debate. Or people could actually discuss! In this thread I am seeing some good discussion between me and others with Mr Discretion NotMe FunFella Feisty (you). No rudeness. No willy waving. If someone takes a certain tone in their posts it will invariably illicit the same response back. If someone’s default position on EVERYTHING is “I know more than you” it comes across as “I am superior to you” and that will trigger a style of response and hold a mirror to it. In the other thread I provided a lot of evidence to support my argument. Mr Discretion then accused me of lecturing but subsequently demanded I provide more evidence (without providing any of his own to counter the points, only his opinion). However, on this thread it has been quite civil and a good discussion." I certainly agree on the tone aspect... I feel that's what you've done with your 'prediction'. Remember, we're all guilty at times. And we should all be told so when we are guilty, it allows us to take stock. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In looking up hitter on our favourite political compass... Many put him/nazi at 1 o'clock. Bit to the right. But right at the top. Which probably means there are a few polciies that are slightly left. Bit more that are slightly right or further right. And if suggest that many of these are with the aim of increasing authoritarian control. " That more 12:02 that 13:00 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Prediction... Morley will now either: A) Completely ignore this thread and then at some point in future on a different thread when he and I lock horns again, he’ll claim he “won” the argument that the Nazis were left wing/socialist. B) He’ll pop in here, drop what he thinks is a hand grenade (but is really just a point that lacks context or anything more than a superficial argument) and then at some point in future on a different thread when he and I lock horns again, he’ll claim he “won” the argument that the Nazis were left wing/socialist. The problem with making predictions like this... it comes across as nothing more than trying to shut down discussion before it even starts. That's not good for anyone or any debate. Or people could actually discuss! In this thread I am seeing some good discussion between me and others with Mr Discretion NotMe FunFella Feisty (you). No rudeness. No willy waving. If someone takes a certain tone in their posts it will invariably illicit the same response back. If someone’s default position on EVERYTHING is “I know more than you” it comes across as “I am superior to you” and that will trigger a style of response and hold a mirror to it. In the other thread I provided a lot of evidence to support my argument. Mr Discretion then accused me of lecturing but subsequently demanded I provide more evidence (without providing any of his own to counter the points, only his opinion). However, on this thread it has been quite civil and a good discussion. I certainly agree on the tone aspect... I feel that's what you've done with your 'prediction'. Remember, we're all guilty at times. And we should all be told so when we are guilty, it allows us to take stock. " Perhaps but as I said, the posting style gets mirrored. Going into a thread and posting a list of things that are just titles, devoid of explanation, in total isolation, with no acknowledgement of contemporary context and then saying that is proof of a position using a mic drop style is not someone who wants a serious discussion. Nor are they open to listening and considering counter arguments. They are only interested in the “win”. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Prediction... Morley will now either: A) Completely ignore this thread and then at some point in future on a different thread when he and I lock horns again, he’ll claim he “won” the argument that the Nazis were left wing/socialist. B) He’ll pop in here, drop what he thinks is a hand grenade (but is really just a point that lacks context or anything more than a superficial argument) and then at some point in future on a different thread when he and I lock horns again, he’ll claim he “won” the argument that the Nazis were left wing/socialist. The problem with making predictions like this... it comes across as nothing more than trying to shut down discussion before it even starts. That's not good for anyone or any debate. Or people could actually discuss! In this thread I am seeing some good discussion between me and others with Mr Discretion NotMe FunFella Feisty (you). No rudeness. No willy waving. If someone takes a certain tone in their posts it will invariably illicit the same response back. If someone’s default position on EVERYTHING is “I know more than you” it comes across as “I am superior to you” and that will trigger a style of response and hold a mirror to it. In the other thread I provided a lot of evidence to support my argument. Mr Discretion then accused me of lecturing but subsequently demanded I provide more evidence (without providing any of his own to counter the points, only his opinion). However, on this thread it has been quite civil and a good discussion. I certainly agree on the tone aspect... I feel that's what you've done with your 'prediction'. Remember, we're all guilty at times. And we should all be told so when we are guilty, it allows us to take stock. Perhaps but as I said, the posting style gets mirrored. Going into a thread and posting a list of things that are just titles, devoid of explanation, in total isolation, with no acknowledgement of contemporary context and then saying that is proof of a position using a mic drop style is not someone who wants a serious discussion. Nor are they open to listening and considering counter arguments. They are only interested in the “win”." Again, agree that responses will be mirrored.... The differnece I see is, you weren't responding to anything, it was a standalone post. Anyway, enough of my lecture. I won't change my mind and you won't change yours | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In looking up hitter on our favourite political compass... Many put him/nazi at 1 o'clock. Bit to the right. But right at the top. Which probably means there are a few polciies that are slightly left. Bit more that are slightly right or further right. And if suggest that many of these are with the aim of increasing authoritarian control. That more 12:02 that 13:00 " the diagram I have has facism and esoteric facism as being to the left (but still right). It shows a right leaning. But deffo not even mid right let alone far right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In looking up hitter on our favourite political compass... Many put him/nazi at 1 o'clock. Bit to the right. But right at the top. Which probably means there are a few polciies that are slightly left. Bit more that are slightly right or further right. And if suggest that many of these are with the aim of increasing authoritarian control. That more 12:02 that 13:00 the diagram I have has facism and esoteric facism as being to the left (but still right). It shows a right leaning. But deffo not even mid right let alone far right. " Any chance you could share that diagram, don't think it's one I've seen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It all comes back to the point I have made since the beginning. EVERYTHING the Nazis did (ergo Hitler) was subservient to militarisation. So we can agree then that none of the Nazis actions can be taken as capitalist or socialist, left-wing or right-wing, because it was all about militarisation. Is that a reasonable statement? Well on becoming Fuhrer Hitler said that "the future of Germany depends exclusively and only on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht. All other tasks must cede precedence to the task of rearmament." So I can see why you would say that and would be interested to read your argument in support of that. I wouldn’t because there are other characteristics of Nazism that correlate directly with Fascism. According to Umberto Eco (well worth looking up) there are 14 signs of fascism: 1. The cult of tradition. This is the belief that the truth is already known once and for all. Fascists believe there is no need to advance in learning. 2. The rejection of modernism. Fascists reject the Enlightenment and its evidence-based rationality. 3. The cult of action for action’s sake. Fascist leaders act impulsively, without thinking or planning ahead. 4. No analytical criticism. Fascists ignore nuance and see any disagreement as treasonous. 5. Fear of difference. Fascists fear diversity. Thus they are racist by definition. 6. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. An economically frustrated and/or politically marginalized middle class is easy to stir to anger. 7. Obsession with a plot. Because the followers must be made to feel besieged, an internal “enemy” is provided: Immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks. (Historically the Jews were often made to be “the enemy.”) 8. Anti-elitism. The followers are made to feel humiliated by the wealth and strength of the educated “elite.” This is used to create resentment. 9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. Fascists believe that life is permanent warfare. Therefore a desire for peace is treasonous. 10. Contempt for the weak. A fascist leader despises his underlings, who in turn despise those under them. They all either mock or ignore the poor, the sick, and the disabled. 11. The cult of heroism. The Fascist is eager to die a hero’s death. In his impatience, he frequently sends other people to their deaths. 12. Machismo. Fascists show disdain for women, disregard for chastity, and condemnation of homosexuality. 13. Selective populism. Under fascism, the “voice of the people” is not the democratic majority, but only the voices of those who support the leader. 14. Ur-fascism speaks Newspeak. Just as in Orwell’s 1984, Fascists use an impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax to limit complex and critical reasoning. And this is precisely what I mean when I say (historical) context matters. Morley has repeatedly focused on a selection of economic policies in isolation from context, despite me constantly saying that doesn’t work. Without doubt some policies of the Nazis can be seen in isolation as having socialist characteristics, but it is the collective, the sum not the parts, that defines whether they can be viewed as left or right, socialist or fascist. As I said in the other thread, there are a list of policies that were enacted under the Johnson govt that in isolation could be argued are socialist. Would anyone really argue Johnson and the Tories were socialists? A number of those 14 points could also be attributed to communism. Maybe, just maybe, there is no concrete definition and we all see these words through different lenses. Does that make any one of us 'right'? This is why the simple political spectrum doesn’t work, but the political compass is more reliable. Totalitarianism can be left or right. As can liberalism. But the Nazis were undeniably on the right. According to the political spectrum, Hitler sat as a slightly-right authoritatian. Don’t tell the OP that
He'll know when he reads this.
According to them, Hitler was much much closer to centre than your 'undeniable' right. Further right than I, but centre nonetheless.
But on the right, no?
Hitler was undeniably on the right, as anyone with any nous, political or historical knowledge knows.
Ever so slightly. I don't think that's the same as 'undeniable'.
I think when the overwhelmingly vast majority of people, including scholars, authors, historians etc all say he was on the right, it becomes undeniable.
Now your just trying to claim some sort of 'win'.
There are plenty who disagree. There are plenty who say he was far right.
On a spectrum. Maybe so.
On a compass (which you yourself said was a better measure). Not so.
"On the compass he is to the right. On the spectrum he is to the right. Anyone who has studied history to any degree places him on the right. He is, as I said, undeniably on the right. That’s not me trying to ‘win’, because frankly anyone who claims hitler was on the left is a bampot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It all comes back to the point I have made since the beginning. EVERYTHING the Nazis did (ergo Hitler) was subservient to militarisation. So we can agree then that none of the Nazis actions can be taken as capitalist or socialist, left-wing or right-wing, because it was all about militarisation. Is that a reasonable statement? Well on becoming Fuhrer Hitler said that "the future of Germany depends exclusively and only on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht. All other tasks must cede precedence to the task of rearmament." So I can see why you would say that and would be interested to read your argument in support of that. I wouldn’t because there are other characteristics of Nazism that correlate directly with Fascism. According to Umberto Eco (well worth looking up) there are 14 signs of fascism: 1. The cult of tradition. This is the belief that the truth is already known once and for all. Fascists believe there is no need to advance in learning. 2. The rejection of modernism. Fascists reject the Enlightenment and its evidence-based rationality. 3. The cult of action for action’s sake. Fascist leaders act impulsively, without thinking or planning ahead. 4. No analytical criticism. Fascists ignore nuance and see any disagreement as treasonous. 5. Fear of difference. Fascists fear diversity. Thus they are racist by definition. 6. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. An economically frustrated and/or politically marginalized middle class is easy to stir to anger. 7. Obsession with a plot. Because the followers must be made to feel besieged, an internal “enemy” is provided: Immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks. (Historically the Jews were often made to be “the enemy.”) 8. Anti-elitism. The followers are made to feel humiliated by the wealth and strength of the educated “elite.” This is used to create resentment. 9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. Fascists believe that life is permanent warfare. Therefore a desire for peace is treasonous. 10. Contempt for the weak. A fascist leader despises his underlings, who in turn despise those under them. They all either mock or ignore the poor, the sick, and the disabled. 11. The cult of heroism. The Fascist is eager to die a hero’s death. In his impatience, he frequently sends other people to their deaths. 12. Machismo. Fascists show disdain for women, disregard for chastity, and condemnation of homosexuality. 13. Selective populism. Under fascism, the “voice of the people” is not the democratic majority, but only the voices of those who support the leader. 14. Ur-fascism speaks Newspeak. Just as in Orwell’s 1984, Fascists use an impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax to limit complex and critical reasoning. And this is precisely what I mean when I say (historical) context matters. Morley has repeatedly focused on a selection of economic policies in isolation from context, despite me constantly saying that doesn’t work. Without doubt some policies of the Nazis can be seen in isolation as having socialist characteristics, but it is the collective, the sum not the parts, that defines whether they can be viewed as left or right, socialist or fascist. As I said in the other thread, there are a list of policies that were enacted under the Johnson govt that in isolation could be argued are socialist. Would anyone really argue Johnson and the Tories were socialists? A number of those 14 points could also be attributed to communism. Maybe, just maybe, there is no concrete definition and we all see these words through different lenses. Does that make any one of us 'right'? This is why the simple political spectrum doesn’t work, but the political compass is more reliable. Totalitarianism can be left or right. As can liberalism. But the Nazis were undeniably on the right. According to the political spectrum, Hitler sat as a slightly-right authoritatian. Don’t tell the OP that
He'll know when he reads this.
According to them, Hitler was much much closer to centre than your 'undeniable' right. Further right than I, but centre nonetheless.
But on the right, no?
Hitler was undeniably on the right, as anyone with any nous, political or historical knowledge knows.
Ever so slightly. I don't think that's the same as 'undeniable'.
I think when the overwhelmingly vast majority of people, including scholars, authors, historians etc all say he was on the right, it becomes undeniable.
Now your just trying to claim some sort of 'win'.
There are plenty who disagree. There are plenty who say he was far right.
On a spectrum. Maybe so.
On a compass (which you yourself said was a better measure). Not so.
On the compass he is to the right. On the spectrum he is to the right. Anyone who has studied history to any degree places him on the right.
He is, as I said, undeniably on the right. That’s not me trying to ‘win’, because frankly anyone who claims hitler was on the left is a bampot. "
Your bias strikes again. Shame really but I probably shouldn't expect anything less.
For Birldn.... Bampot is Scottish for foolish or obnoxious, I'm assuming he means foolish. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You'd have to class chairman mao right wing, stalin, putin and many more as right ring." Putin! You see what Morley is doing, again, is trying to position today’s big bad as left wing to disassociate the bad guys from right leaning ideologies. This is an interesting piece on that very point from Newsweek... “Fascist regimes have charismatic dictators with hyper-masculine personality cults. These regimes generally evince a hyper-nationalist ethos, a cult of violence, mass mobilization of youth, high levels of repression, powerful propaganda machines and imperialist projects. Fascist regimes are hugely popular—usually because the charismatic leader appeals to broad sectors of the population. Putin and his Russia fit the bill perfectly. In calling Putin's Russia fascist, Russian critics have proven to be far bolder than their non-Russian counterparts in the West, who remain wary about the F-word. Some Westerners genuinely believe that Putin's brand of dictatorship differs from past fascist regimes. They often locate the differences in the historical conditions that gave rise to Hitler, Mussolini and Putin, and not in the actual characteristics of their regimes. But doing so confuses the origins of similar things with their essential features. No one would say that America is not democratic because the origins of American democracy lay in revolution and not, as with Britain, in historical evolution. But many Westerners fear the implications of calling a spade a spade. If Putin's Russia is fascist, then it is comparable to Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy and, thus, certifiably evil. And that means that calls for understanding Putin amount to calls for understanding evil.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It all comes back to the point I have made since the beginning. EVERYTHING the Nazis did (ergo Hitler) was subservient to militarisation. So we can agree then that none of the Nazis actions can be taken as capitalist or socialist, left-wing or right-wing, because it was all about militarisation. Is that a reasonable statement? Well on becoming Fuhrer Hitler said that "the future of Germany depends exclusively and only on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht. All other tasks must cede precedence to the task of rearmament." So I can see why you would say that and would be interested to read your argument in support of that. I wouldn’t because there are other characteristics of Nazism that correlate directly with Fascism. According to Umberto Eco (well worth looking up) there are 14 signs of fascism: 1. The cult of tradition. This is the belief that the truth is already known once and for all. Fascists believe there is no need to advance in learning. 2. The rejection of modernism. Fascists reject the Enlightenment and its evidence-based rationality. 3. The cult of action for action’s sake. Fascist leaders act impulsively, without thinking or planning ahead. 4. No analytical criticism. Fascists ignore nuance and see any disagreement as treasonous. 5. Fear of difference. Fascists fear diversity. Thus they are racist by definition. 6. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. An economically frustrated and/or politically marginalized middle class is easy to stir to anger. 7. Obsession with a plot. Because the followers must be made to feel besieged, an internal “enemy” is provided: Immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks. (Historically the Jews were often made to be “the enemy.”) 8. Anti-elitism. The followers are made to feel humiliated by the wealth and strength of the educated “elite.” This is used to create resentment. 9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. Fascists believe that life is permanent warfare. Therefore a desire for peace is treasonous. 10. Contempt for the weak. A fascist leader despises his underlings, who in turn despise those under them. They all either mock or ignore the poor, the sick, and the disabled. 11. The cult of heroism. The Fascist is eager to die a hero’s death. In his impatience, he frequently sends other people to their deaths. 12. Machismo. Fascists show disdain for women, disregard for chastity, and condemnation of homosexuality. 13. Selective populism. Under fascism, the “voice of the people” is not the democratic majority, but only the voices of those who support the leader. 14. Ur-fascism speaks Newspeak. Just as in Orwell’s 1984, Fascists use an impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax to limit complex and critical reasoning. And this is precisely what I mean when I say (historical) context matters. Morley has repeatedly focused on a selection of economic policies in isolation from context, despite me constantly saying that doesn’t work. Without doubt some policies of the Nazis can be seen in isolation as having socialist characteristics, but it is the collective, the sum not the parts, that defines whether they can be viewed as left or right, socialist or fascist. As I said in the other thread, there are a list of policies that were enacted under the Johnson govt that in isolation could be argued are socialist. Would anyone really argue Johnson and the Tories were socialists? A number of those 14 points could also be attributed to communism. Maybe, just maybe, there is no concrete definition and we all see these words through different lenses. Does that make any one of us 'right'? You COULD ascribe SOME of those points to extreme Communism (Stalin, Mao etc) but ALL of them apply to Fascism and correlate to Nazism. For those who are genuinely interested Joseph Goebbels published a pamphlet in 1927 titled The Nazi-Sozi which gave points of how National Socialism differed from Marxism/Socialism. And as I gave already posted... The Nazis claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations because of its intention to dissolve private property, its support of class conflict, its aggression against the middle class, its hostility towards small business and its atheism. Nazism rejected class conflict-based socialism and economic egalitarianism, favouring instead a stratified economy with social classes based on merit and talent, retaining private property and the creation of national solidarity that transcends class distinction." Emphasising National Socialism is NOT socialism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is interesting is that those who are most strongly arguing the Nazis were left/socialist are those who appear to hold centre-right to right wing views. That says to me they want to disassociate their own views from having any proximity to Nazism and Fascism." Is that really the way that you think? That the only possible reason anyone could disagree with you is because they are trying to preserve their mental model? Have you looked at it from the other side? Is it at all possible that the reason that you're so convinced that the Nazis were right-wing could be because you're desperate to distance them from your own socialist views? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is interesting is that those who are most strongly arguing the Nazis were left/socialist are those who appear to hold centre-right to right wing views. That says to me they want to disassociate their own views from having any proximity to Nazism and Fascism. Is that really the way that you think? That the only possible reason anyone could disagree with you is because they are trying to preserve their mental model? Have you looked at it from the other side? Is it at all possible that the reason that you're so convinced that the Nazis were right-wing could be because you're desperate to distance them from your own socialist views?" The basis of the conflation of nazism and socialism is the term "National Socialism," a self description of the Nazis. "National Socialism" includes the word "socialism", but it is just a word. Hitler and the Nazis outlawed socialism, and executed socialists and communists en masse, even before they started rounding up Jews. In 1933, the Dachau concentration camp held socialists and leftists exclusively. The Nazis arrested more than 11,000 Germans for "illegal socialist activity" in 1936. From Hitler, Nazis, Socialism, and Rightwing Propaganda David Klein January 2011 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is interesting is that those who are most strongly arguing the Nazis were left/socialist are those who appear to hold centre-right to right wing views. That says to me they want to disassociate their own views from having any proximity to Nazism and Fascism. Is that really the way that you think? That the only possible reason anyone could disagree with you is because they are trying to preserve their mental model? Have you looked at it from the other side? Is it at all possible that the reason that you're so convinced that the Nazis were right-wing could be because you're desperate to distance them from your own socialist views? The basis of the conflation of nazism and socialism is the term "National Socialism," a self description of the Nazis. "National Socialism" includes the word "socialism", but it is just a word. Hitler and the Nazis outlawed socialism, and executed socialists and communists en masse, even before they started rounding up Jews. In 1933, the Dachau concentration camp held socialists and leftists exclusively. The Nazis arrested more than 11,000 Germans for "illegal socialist activity" in 1936. From Hitler, Nazis, Socialism, and Rightwing Propaganda David Klein January 2011" You know that Hitler took over the party, it was a trojan horse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is interesting is that those who are most strongly arguing the Nazis were left/socialist are those who appear to hold centre-right to right wing views. That says to me they want to disassociate their own views from having any proximity to Nazism and Fascism. Is that really the way that you think? That the only possible reason anyone could disagree with you is because they are trying to preserve their mental model? Have you looked at it from the other side? Is it at all possible that the reason that you're so convinced that the Nazis were right-wing could be because you're desperate to distance them from your own socialist views?" No. It isn’t my view (well it is but not an original thought) it is the view if the vast majority of historians over almost a century that the Nazis were right wing. As I said above, the revisionism started in the 80s with the rise of neo liberalism. Only then did people start trying to paint the Nazis as left wing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is interesting is that those who are most strongly arguing the Nazis were left/socialist are those who appear to hold centre-right to right wing views. That says to me they want to disassociate their own views from having any proximity to Nazism and Fascism. Is that really the way that you think? That the only possible reason anyone could disagree with you is because they are trying to preserve their mental model? Have you looked at it from the other side? Is it at all possible that the reason that you're so convinced that the Nazis were right-wing could be because you're desperate to distance them from your own socialist views? No. It isn’t my view (well it is but not an original thought) it is the view if the vast majority of historians over almost a century that the Nazis were right wing. As I said above, the revisionism started in the 80s with the rise of neo liberalism. Only then did people start trying to paint the Nazis as left wing. " AND LET ME QUOTE MYSELF AGAIN... For those who are genuinely interested Joseph Goebbels published a pamphlet in 1927 titled The Nazi-Sozi which gave points of how National Socialism differed from Marxism/Socialism. And as I gave already posted... The Nazis claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations because of its intention to dissolve private property, its support of class conflict, its aggression against the middle class, its hostility towards small business and its atheism. Nazism rejected class conflict-based socialism and economic egalitarianism, favouring instead a stratified economy with social classes based on merit and talent, retaining private property and the creation of national solidarity that transcends class distinction. Does anyone really have a counter argument that is stronger than how the Nazis themselves described their views? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is interesting is that those who are most strongly arguing the Nazis were left/socialist are those who appear to hold centre-right to right wing views. That says to me they want to disassociate their own views from having any proximity to Nazism and Fascism." "Is that really the way that you think? That the only possible reason anyone could disagree with you is because they are trying to preserve their mental model? Have you looked at it from the other side? Is it at all possible that the reason that you're so convinced that the Nazis were right-wing could be because you're desperate to distance them from your own socialist views?" "No. It isn’t my view (well it is but not an original thought) it is the view if the vast majority of historians over almost a century that the Nazis were right wing..." Not the question I asked, but ho hum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And as I gave already posted... The Nazis claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations ..." You seem to be under the impression that communism and socialism are the same thing. They aren't. The fact that the Nazis were against communism didn't mean that they were also against socialism. But I'm giving up at this point. It's very clear that we all have different ideas of what socialism is, and what the opposite of socialism is. The one thing we seem to be able to agree on is that, from where we stand, the Nazis were extremely unpleasant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And as I gave already posted... The Nazis claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations ... You seem to be under the impression that communism and socialism are the same thing. They aren't. The fact that the Nazis were against communism didn't mean that they were also against socialism. But I'm giving up at this point. It's very clear that we all have different ideas of what socialism is, and what the opposite of socialism is. The one thing we seem to be able to agree on is that, from where we stand, the Nazis were extremely unpleasant." ADOLF HITLER ON THE NAZI FORM OF ‘SOCIALISM’ (1932) You might want to Google the above interview where Hitler talks about taking socialism away from the socialists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is interesting is that those who are most strongly arguing the Nazis were left/socialist are those who appear to hold centre-right to right wing views. That says to me they want to disassociate their own views from having any proximity to Nazism and Fascism. Is that really the way that you think? That the only possible reason anyone could disagree with you is because they are trying to preserve their mental model? Have you looked at it from the other side? Is it at all possible that the reason that you're so convinced that the Nazis were right-wing could be because you're desperate to distance them from your own socialist views? No. It isn’t my view (well it is but not an original thought) it is the view if the vast majority of historians over almost a century that the Nazis were right wing... Not the question I asked, but ho hum." I thought I had? No I do not think that is possible because it isn’t MY view it is THE view held by the vast majority of historians and indeed the Nazis themselves as per copious amounts of evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? In a how far right is X comparison: Who was more right wing hitler or Mussolini? Both were outright fascists. It’s not a pissing contest. There must be scale?? Where would Thatcher and Sunak sit? They are referred too as right wing today They’re not referred to as fascists, though. How right wing are the tory party? Quite. The Overton window has shifted so far that even some (thinking) people who voted Thatcher don't vote Tory now yet their ideology hasn't changed. Also, the Tories a couple of years ago lifted actual BNP policies as theirs, so yanno. The world has seen a shift towards the right as capitalism goes into it's death throes and needs fascism to prop it up. Anyway, broadly speaking, Nazism being alright 'a bit' isn't up for discussion, but thanks to this post for alerting me to massive red flag people I've now blocked. Imagine being on a public site and outing yourself as a Nazi sympathiser in any remote way. I hope all the target audience see this and act accordingly
Not one person on this thread has sympathised with hitler or the nazi's. Where did you get that idea from?
I’d agree that nobody has sympathised with the Nazis, but what do you think is the right-wing motivation for claiming (against virtually every historian/expert in the world) that the Nazis weren’t right wing?
I think politics is never a straight line, with everything fitting neatly into boxes.
Where we are today in society is million miles away from the 1930's - 1940's, and when you call politics right wing today, they would not have been recognised back then as such.
If you take hitler and his intentions, and take hitler his actions you have 2 very different outcomes, leading possibly to different conclusions. However, there is no doubt that he was an evil this planet should never have had to suffer.
And yet some conservative politicians of the time sought to side with Hitler as he rose to prominence, including from the U.K and USA.
The world was very different then, the rich were everything you hate, and mostly for good reason back then. Technological advancements at the time gave us the records that would show the devastation and evil caused.
The world was not so different that Hitler and the Nazis can now be referred to as left wing. Unless you’re arguing that the Overton window has shifted so far to the right - which is the exact opposite of what some on this forum claim.
My point was nothing to do with Hitler, my point was all about how people today cry how right wing the tories are, when they are pretty much middle of the road as are the labour party.
You do it all the time and it is what makes you seem very left of left.
Which is nothing to do with asking why some people on the right want to claim that the Nazis weren’t right-wing. It’s a valid question - why deny the obvious?
I’m proudly left wing, but I wouldn’t attempt to claim that Stalin was a product of the right. "Being proudly left wing means what exactly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? In a how far right is X comparison: Who was more right wing hitler or Mussolini? Both were outright fascists. It’s not a pissing contest. There must be scale?? Where would Thatcher and Sunak sit? They are referred too as right wing today They’re not referred to as fascists, though. How right wing are the tory party? Quite. The Overton window has shifted so far that even some (thinking) people who voted Thatcher don't vote Tory now yet their ideology hasn't changed. Also, the Tories a couple of years ago lifted actual BNP policies as theirs, so yanno. The world has seen a shift towards the right as capitalism goes into it's death throes and needs fascism to prop it up. Anyway, broadly speaking, Nazism being alright 'a bit' isn't up for discussion, but thanks to this post for alerting me to massive red flag people I've now blocked. Imagine being on a public site and outing yourself as a Nazi sympathiser in any remote way. I hope all the target audience see this and act accordingly
Not one person on this thread has sympathised with hitler or the nazi's. Where did you get that idea from?
I’d agree that nobody has sympathised with the Nazis, but what do you think is the right-wing motivation for claiming (against virtually every historian/expert in the world) that the Nazis weren’t right wing?
I think politics is never a straight line, with everything fitting neatly into boxes.
Where we are today in society is million miles away from the 1930's - 1940's, and when you call politics right wing today, they would not have been recognised back then as such.
If you take hitler and his intentions, and take hitler his actions you have 2 very different outcomes, leading possibly to different conclusions. However, there is no doubt that he was an evil this planet should never have had to suffer.
And yet some conservative politicians of the time sought to side with Hitler as he rose to prominence, including from the U.K and USA.
The world was very different then, the rich were everything you hate, and mostly for good reason back then. Technological advancements at the time gave us the records that would show the devastation and evil caused.
The world was not so different that Hitler and the Nazis can now be referred to as left wing. Unless you’re arguing that the Overton window has shifted so far to the right - which is the exact opposite of what some on this forum claim.
My point was nothing to do with Hitler, my point was all about how people today cry how right wing the tories are, when they are pretty much middle of the road as are the labour party.
You do it all the time and it is what makes you seem very left of left.
Which is nothing to do with asking why some people on the right want to claim that the Nazis weren’t right-wing. It’s a valid question - why deny the obvious?
I’m proudly left wing, but I wouldn’t attempt to claim that Stalin was a product of the right.
Being proudly left wing means what exactly?
"What do you think it means? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And as I gave already posted... The Nazis claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations ... You seem to be under the impression that communism and socialism are the same thing. They aren't. The fact that the Nazis were against communism didn't mean that they were also against socialism. But I'm giving up at this point. It's very clear that we all have different ideas of what socialism is, and what the opposite of socialism is. The one thing we seem to be able to agree on is that, from where we stand, the Nazis were extremely unpleasant." You have, in my opinion, once again fallen into the trap of only viewing things from a 21st Century lens rather than a contemporary context. Of course over the last 100+ years socialism has evolved to what we know today which is a more moderate left wing ideology that is more easily seen as distinct from Communism. But in the inter-war years and following the Russian revolution, terms such as Marxism, Bolshevism, Communism, and Socialism were virtually interchangeable and certainly were in propaganda language. As pointed out by NotMe and Amelie the Nazi party evolved and was eventually reshaped by Hitler and his followers and once in Govt (with the power to enact policy) there were no longer a socialist party having purged those of that leaning. I recognise you have a different opinion but what I am still struggling to understand is what evidence you are basing that opinion on? None of your posts have presented evidence, only opinion? So a direct question to you... Do you think the Nazis (and Hitler) were socialists/left wing and if so why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? In a how far right is X comparison: Who was more right wing hitler or Mussolini? Both were outright fascists. It’s not a pissing contest. There must be scale?? Where would Thatcher and Sunak sit? They are referred too as right wing today They’re not referred to as fascists, though. How right wing are the tory party? Quite. The Overton window has shifted so far that even some (thinking) people who voted Thatcher don't vote Tory now yet their ideology hasn't changed. Also, the Tories a couple of years ago lifted actual BNP policies as theirs, so yanno. The world has seen a shift towards the right as capitalism goes into it's death throes and needs fascism to prop it up. Anyway, broadly speaking, Nazism being alright 'a bit' isn't up for discussion, but thanks to this post for alerting me to massive red flag people I've now blocked. Imagine being on a public site and outing yourself as a Nazi sympathiser in any remote way. I hope all the target audience see this and act accordingly
Not one person on this thread has sympathised with hitler or the nazi's. Where did you get that idea from?
I’d agree that nobody has sympathised with the Nazis, but what do you think is the right-wing motivation for claiming (against virtually every historian/expert in the world) that the Nazis weren’t right wing?
I think politics is never a straight line, with everything fitting neatly into boxes.
Where we are today in society is million miles away from the 1930's - 1940's, and when you call politics right wing today, they would not have been recognised back then as such.
If you take hitler and his intentions, and take hitler his actions you have 2 very different outcomes, leading possibly to different conclusions. However, there is no doubt that he was an evil this planet should never have had to suffer.
And yet some conservative politicians of the time sought to side with Hitler as he rose to prominence, including from the U.K and USA.
The world was very different then, the rich were everything you hate, and mostly for good reason back then. Technological advancements at the time gave us the records that would show the devastation and evil caused.
The world was not so different that Hitler and the Nazis can now be referred to as left wing. Unless you’re arguing that the Overton window has shifted so far to the right - which is the exact opposite of what some on this forum claim.
My point was nothing to do with Hitler, my point was all about how people today cry how right wing the tories are, when they are pretty much middle of the road as are the labour party.
You do it all the time and it is what makes you seem very left of left.
Which is nothing to do with asking why some people on the right want to claim that the Nazis weren’t right-wing. It’s a valid question - why deny the obvious?
I’m proudly left wing, but I wouldn’t attempt to claim that Stalin was a product of the right.
Being proudly left wing means what exactly?
What do you think it means? "I'm not really sure, you for instance seem to champion no borders and insist the government should be responsible for everything and everyone. You lean way past central in my books, liberal with a dash of communism, or ultra socialist. I could be way off, but our ideals are not aligned in the slightest, so I'm going to be biased. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? In a how far right is X comparison: Who was more right wing hitler or Mussolini? Both were outright fascists. It’s not a pissing contest. There must be scale?? Where would Thatcher and Sunak sit? They are referred too as right wing today They’re not referred to as fascists, though. How right wing are the tory party? Quite. The Overton window has shifted so far that even some (thinking) people who voted Thatcher don't vote Tory now yet their ideology hasn't changed. Also, the Tories a couple of years ago lifted actual BNP policies as theirs, so yanno. The world has seen a shift towards the right as capitalism goes into it's death throes and needs fascism to prop it up. Anyway, broadly speaking, Nazism being alright 'a bit' isn't up for discussion, but thanks to this post for alerting me to massive red flag people I've now blocked. Imagine being on a public site and outing yourself as a Nazi sympathiser in any remote way. I hope all the target audience see this and act accordingly
Not one person on this thread has sympathised with hitler or the nazi's. Where did you get that idea from?
I’d agree that nobody has sympathised with the Nazis, but what do you think is the right-wing motivation for claiming (against virtually every historian/expert in the world) that the Nazis weren’t right wing?
I think politics is never a straight line, with everything fitting neatly into boxes.
Where we are today in society is million miles away from the 1930's - 1940's, and when you call politics right wing today, they would not have been recognised back then as such.
If you take hitler and his intentions, and take hitler his actions you have 2 very different outcomes, leading possibly to different conclusions. However, there is no doubt that he was an evil this planet should never have had to suffer.
And yet some conservative politicians of the time sought to side with Hitler as he rose to prominence, including from the U.K and USA.
The world was very different then, the rich were everything you hate, and mostly for good reason back then. Technological advancements at the time gave us the records that would show the devastation and evil caused.
The world was not so different that Hitler and the Nazis can now be referred to as left wing. Unless you’re arguing that the Overton window has shifted so far to the right - which is the exact opposite of what some on this forum claim.
My point was nothing to do with Hitler, my point was all about how people today cry how right wing the tories are, when they are pretty much middle of the road as are the labour party.
You do it all the time and it is what makes you seem very left of left.
Which is nothing to do with asking why some people on the right want to claim that the Nazis weren’t right-wing. It’s a valid question - why deny the obvious?
I’m proudly left wing, but I wouldn’t attempt to claim that Stalin was a product of the right.
Being proudly left wing means what exactly?
What do you think it means?
I'm not really sure, you for instance seem to champion no borders and insist the government should be responsible for everything and everyone. You lean way past central in my books, liberal with a dash of communism, or ultra socialist. I could be way off, but our ideals are not aligned in the slightest, so I'm going to be biased.
"I agree I lean way past central. That’s why I said I’m proudly left wing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? In a how far right is X comparison: Who was more right wing hitler or Mussolini? Both were outright fascists. It’s not a pissing contest. There must be scale?? Where would Thatcher and Sunak sit? They are referred too as right wing today They’re not referred to as fascists, though. How right wing are the tory party? Quite. The Overton window has shifted so far that even some (thinking) people who voted Thatcher don't vote Tory now yet their ideology hasn't changed. Also, the Tories a couple of years ago lifted actual BNP policies as theirs, so yanno. The world has seen a shift towards the right as capitalism goes into it's death throes and needs fascism to prop it up. Anyway, broadly speaking, Nazism being alright 'a bit' isn't up for discussion, but thanks to this post for alerting me to massive red flag people I've now blocked. Imagine being on a public site and outing yourself as a Nazi sympathiser in any remote way. I hope all the target audience see this and act accordingly
Not one person on this thread has sympathised with hitler or the nazi's. Where did you get that idea from?
I’d agree that nobody has sympathised with the Nazis, but what do you think is the right-wing motivation for claiming (against virtually every historian/expert in the world) that the Nazis weren’t right wing?
I think politics is never a straight line, with everything fitting neatly into boxes.
Where we are today in society is million miles away from the 1930's - 1940's, and when you call politics right wing today, they would not have been recognised back then as such.
If you take hitler and his intentions, and take hitler his actions you have 2 very different outcomes, leading possibly to different conclusions. However, there is no doubt that he was an evil this planet should never have had to suffer.
And yet some conservative politicians of the time sought to side with Hitler as he rose to prominence, including from the U.K and USA.
The world was very different then, the rich were everything you hate, and mostly for good reason back then. Technological advancements at the time gave us the records that would show the devastation and evil caused.
The world was not so different that Hitler and the Nazis can now be referred to as left wing. Unless you’re arguing that the Overton window has shifted so far to the right - which is the exact opposite of what some on this forum claim.
My point was nothing to do with Hitler, my point was all about how people today cry how right wing the tories are, when they are pretty much middle of the road as are the labour party.
You do it all the time and it is what makes you seem very left of left.
Which is nothing to do with asking why some people on the right want to claim that the Nazis weren’t right-wing. It’s a valid question - why deny the obvious?
I’m proudly left wing, but I wouldn’t attempt to claim that Stalin was a product of the right.
Being proudly left wing means what exactly?
What do you think it means?
I'm not really sure, you for instance seem to champion no borders and insist the government should be responsible for everything and everyone. You lean way past central in my books, liberal with a dash of communism, or ultra socialist. I could be way off, but our ideals are not aligned in the slightest, so I'm going to be biased.
I agree I lean way past central. That’s why I said I’m proudly left wing. "You have said that, but what does it mean to be proudly left wing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? In a how far right is X comparison: Who was more right wing hitler or Mussolini? Both were outright fascists. It’s not a pissing contest. There must be scale?? Where would Thatcher and Sunak sit? They are referred too as right wing today They’re not referred to as fascists, though. How right wing are the tory party? Quite. The Overton window has shifted so far that even some (thinking) people who voted Thatcher don't vote Tory now yet their ideology hasn't changed. Also, the Tories a couple of years ago lifted actual BNP policies as theirs, so yanno. The world has seen a shift towards the right as capitalism goes into it's death throes and needs fascism to prop it up. Anyway, broadly speaking, Nazism being alright 'a bit' isn't up for discussion, but thanks to this post for alerting me to massive red flag people I've now blocked. Imagine being on a public site and outing yourself as a Nazi sympathiser in any remote way. I hope all the target audience see this and act accordingly
Not one person on this thread has sympathised with hitler or the nazi's. Where did you get that idea from?
I’d agree that nobody has sympathised with the Nazis, but what do you think is the right-wing motivation for claiming (against virtually every historian/expert in the world) that the Nazis weren’t right wing?
I think politics is never a straight line, with everything fitting neatly into boxes.
Where we are today in society is million miles away from the 1930's - 1940's, and when you call politics right wing today, they would not have been recognised back then as such.
If you take hitler and his intentions, and take hitler his actions you have 2 very different outcomes, leading possibly to different conclusions. However, there is no doubt that he was an evil this planet should never have had to suffer.
And yet some conservative politicians of the time sought to side with Hitler as he rose to prominence, including from the U.K and USA.
The world was very different then, the rich were everything you hate, and mostly for good reason back then. Technological advancements at the time gave us the records that would show the devastation and evil caused.
The world was not so different that Hitler and the Nazis can now be referred to as left wing. Unless you’re arguing that the Overton window has shifted so far to the right - which is the exact opposite of what some on this forum claim.
My point was nothing to do with Hitler, my point was all about how people today cry how right wing the tories are, when they are pretty much middle of the road as are the labour party.
You do it all the time and it is what makes you seem very left of left.
Which is nothing to do with asking why some people on the right want to claim that the Nazis weren’t right-wing. It’s a valid question - why deny the obvious?
I’m proudly left wing, but I wouldn’t attempt to claim that Stalin was a product of the right.
Being proudly left wing means what exactly?
What do you think it means?
I'm not really sure, you for instance seem to champion no borders and insist the government should be responsible for everything and everyone. You lean way past central in my books, liberal with a dash of communism, or ultra socialist. I could be way off, but our ideals are not aligned in the slightest, so I'm going to be biased.
I agree I lean way past central. That’s why I said I’m proudly left wing.
You have said that, but what does it mean to be proudly left wing?"Unashamedly. Openly. Happy to discuss my politics with others. Happy to bang the drum for what I believe in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the locking up and torture of trade unionists and socialists a particularly left-wing ideal, in your opinion? No, it's a policy designed to make sure that no one else had the ability to command the populace. Not right wing at all, just building his power base. I’ll ask you the same question Do you know more about the Nazis than established historians/experts like Ian Kershaw? Because they’ll tell you the Nazis were right wing. Not socialists. Would you disagree? In a how far right is X comparison: Who was more right wing hitler or Mussolini? Both were outright fascists. It’s not a pissing contest. There must be scale?? Where would Thatcher and Sunak sit? They are referred too as right wing today They’re not referred to as fascists, though. How right wing are the tory party? Quite. The Overton window has shifted so far that even some (thinking) people who voted Thatcher don't vote Tory now yet their ideology hasn't changed. Also, the Tories a couple of years ago lifted actual BNP policies as theirs, so yanno. The world has seen a shift towards the right as capitalism goes into it's death throes and needs fascism to prop it up. Anyway, broadly speaking, Nazism being alright 'a bit' isn't up for discussion, but thanks to this post for alerting me to massive red flag people I've now blocked. Imagine being on a public site and outing yourself as a Nazi sympathiser in any remote way. I hope all the target audience see this and act accordingly "How pathetic. No 1 ever said that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It all comes back to the point I have made since the beginning. EVERYTHING the Nazis did (ergo Hitler) was subservient to militarisation. So we can agree then that none of the Nazis actions can be taken as capitalist or socialist, left-wing or right-wing, because it was all about militarisation. Is that a reasonable statement? Well on becoming Fuhrer Hitler said that "the future of Germany depends exclusively and only on the reconstruction of the Wehrmacht. All other tasks must cede precedence to the task of rearmament." So I can see why you would say that and would be interested to read your argument in support of that. I wouldn’t because there are other characteristics of Nazism that correlate directly with Fascism. According to Umberto Eco (well worth looking up) there are 14 signs of fascism: 1. The cult of tradition. This is the belief that the truth is already known once and for all. Fascists believe there is no need to advance in learning. 2. The rejection of modernism. Fascists reject the Enlightenment and its evidence-based rationality. 3. The cult of action for action’s sake. Fascist leaders act impulsively, without thinking or planning ahead. 4. No analytical criticism. Fascists ignore nuance and see any disagreement as treasonous. 5. Fear of difference. Fascists fear diversity. Thus they are racist by definition. 6. Appeal to a frustrated middle class. An economically frustrated and/or politically marginalized middle class is easy to stir to anger. 7. Obsession with a plot. Because the followers must be made to feel besieged, an internal “enemy” is provided: Immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks. (Historically the Jews were often made to be “the enemy.”) 8. Anti-elitism. The followers are made to feel humiliated by the wealth and strength of the educated “elite.” This is used to create resentment. 9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. Fascists believe that life is permanent warfare. Therefore a desire for peace is treasonous. 10. Contempt for the weak. A fascist leader despises his underlings, who in turn despise those under them. They all either mock or ignore the poor, the sick, and the disabled. 11. The cult of heroism. The Fascist is eager to die a hero’s death. In his impatience, he frequently sends other people to their deaths. 12. Machismo. Fascists show disdain for women, disregard for chastity, and condemnation of homosexuality. 13. Selective populism. Under fascism, the “voice of the people” is not the democratic majority, but only the voices of those who support the leader. 14. Ur-fascism speaks Newspeak. Just as in Orwell’s 1984, Fascists use an impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax to limit complex and critical reasoning. And this is precisely what I mean when I say (historical) context matters. Morley has repeatedly focused on a selection of economic policies in isolation from context, despite me constantly saying that doesn’t work. Without doubt some policies of the Nazis can be seen in isolation as having socialist characteristics, but it is the collective, the sum not the parts, that defines whether they can be viewed as left or right, socialist or fascist. As I said in the other thread, there are a list of policies that were enacted under the Johnson govt that in isolation could be argued are socialist. Would anyone really argue Johnson and the Tories were socialists? A number of those 14 points could also be attributed to communism. Maybe, just maybe, there is no concrete definition and we all see these words through different lenses. Does that make any one of us 'right'? This is why the simple political spectrum doesn’t work, but the political compass is more reliable. Totalitarianism can be left or right. As can liberalism. But the Nazis were undeniably on the right. According to the political spectrum, Hitler sat as a slightly-right authoritatian. Don’t tell the OP that
He'll know when he reads this.
According to them, Hitler was much much closer to centre than your 'undeniable' right. Further right than I, but centre nonetheless."Ah see. What's the post called and what's the detail here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I missed this from Morley... You'd have to class chairman mao right wing, stalin, putin and many more as right ring. Putin! You see what Morley is doing, again, is trying to position today’s big bad as left wing to disassociate the bad guys from right leaning ideologies. This is an interesting piece on that very point from Newsweek... “Fascist regimes have charismatic dictators with hyper-masculine personality cults. These regimes generally evince a hyper-nationalist ethos, a cult of violence, mass mobilization of youth, high levels of repression, powerful propaganda machines and imperialist projects. Fascist regimes are hugely popular—usually because the charismatic leader appeals to broad sectors of the population. Putin and his Russia fit the bill perfectly. In calling Putin's Russia fascist, Russian critics have proven to be far bolder than their non-Russian counterparts in the West, who remain wary about the F-word. Some Westerners genuinely believe that Putin's brand of dictatorship differs from past fascist regimes. They often locate the differences in the historical conditions that gave rise to Hitler, Mussolini and Putin, and not in the actual characteristics of their regimes. But doing so confuses the origins of similar things with their essential features. No one would say that America is not democratic because the origins of American democracy lay in revolution and not, as with Britain, in historical evolution. But many Westerners fear the implications of calling a spade a spade. If Putin's Russia is fascist, then it is comparable to Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy and, thus, certifiably evil. And that means that calls for understanding Putin amount to calls for understanding evil.”" . Sorry what do you think is the confusion here. Are you suggesting no dictators can be left wing? Are you suggesting Russia is right wing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feel free to read about Hitler and the evolution of the Nazi party in the Britannica website - "were the Nazis socialists?" In short, NO. Were they left wing? After the Night of the long knives in 1934, not a bloody chance." L Yes you've fallen Into the trap many other have Would you care to name 5 right wing social and economic policies of the nazi party? Britanicas only attempt to say he wasn't left wing was that he disbanded trade unions. The trade unions were free enterprise. That's exactly what a right wing free market is That's what seemingly some in here have hung their hats on. Ignoring the several other left wing nazi party political ideals and what lay in their manifesto | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I missed this from Morley... You'd have to class chairman mao right wing, stalin, putin and many more as right ring. Putin! You see what Morley is doing, again, is trying to position today’s big bad as left wing to disassociate the bad guys from right leaning ideologies. This is an interesting piece on that very point from Newsweek... “Fascist regimes have charismatic dictators with hyper-masculine personality cults. These regimes generally evince a hyper-nationalist ethos, a cult of violence, mass mobilization of youth, high levels of repression, powerful propaganda machines and imperialist projects. Fascist regimes are hugely popular—usually because the charismatic leader appeals to broad sectors of the population. Putin and his Russia fit the bill perfectly. In calling Putin's Russia fascist, Russian critics have proven to be far bolder than their non-Russian counterparts in the West, who remain wary about the F-word. Some Westerners genuinely believe that Putin's brand of dictatorship differs from past fascist regimes. They often locate the differences in the historical conditions that gave rise to Hitler, Mussolini and Putin, and not in the actual characteristics of their regimes. But doing so confuses the origins of similar things with their essential features. No one would say that America is not democratic because the origins of American democracy lay in revolution and not, as with Britain, in historical evolution. But many Westerners fear the implications of calling a spade a spade. If Putin's Russia is fascist, then it is comparable to Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy and, thus, certifiably evil. And that means that calls for understanding Putin amount to calls for understanding evil.”. Sorry what do you think is the confusion here. Are you suggesting no dictators can be left wing? Are you suggesting Russia is right wing?" Not seen anyone suggest you cannot have left wing dictators. Suggesting Stalin or Mao were anything other than left wing would be madness. Also not seeing “those of the left” trying to undertake revisionist history to portray the likes of Stalin or Mao as right wing, because that would be mad. Only some of “those on the right” have tried to rewrite history and portray Hitler and the Nazis as left wing, which is clearly mad! The point from the Newsweek article (there is far more, this was an abstract) is that Putin’s regime bears all the hallmarks of being fascist and Russian commentators have been saying it for years but western commentators have shied away from it. There is not a direct line from the USSR to Putin’s Russia. They are seen by these commentators as right wing and Fascist in nature. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The above. Hitler came from a rich background. Just like engels the famous Marxist... Engels was rightnwing. But the Marxist / Communist manifestos were left of centre. Don't make the mistake of confusing Hitler and the nazi party politics. Hitler believed in the aryan race but wasn't one hismelf. " Who cares about individual policies? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
